This cover embodies what it means to be male in America: being physically fit, sex, and looking good are all emphasized.

SUPA FINAL PROJECT

GROWING UP MALE IN AMERICA



Growing up male in America is a paradox. On one hand we are raised with essential values for any human: humbleness, humility, the ability to respect others; all things that one needs to be in decent human being. On the other hand we are subliminally told to be like a man on the cover of "GQ" magazine. Although the man on "GQ" might have these values, could our culture be promoting things that not all males have, based both on personality and genetics? Why don't we ask Lebron James.
In our Western Culture masculinity, having relationships with women, and being dominate are just a few of the cultural stereotypes that men are forced to conform to. Although this pressure can come from many sources including the home environment, much can come from advertising as well. In this advertisement of GQ Magazine, we see Lebron James, the epitome of an ideal male, being displayed and marketed to the mass public. The cover of this magazine, which was seen by millions of impressionable young males, were subconsciously subjected to stereotypes that our culture values in males. James, who is strong, athletic, and dominate-ironically, James is often called the “most dominate player in the game of basketball”-are conveyed to a collective audience just by his presence. His look conveys a sense of control and decisiveness that the masculine male is supposed to conform too. The way James is dressed is the stereotypical way a successful male dresses: suite, tie, button down shirt. So, this advertisement effectively conveys a much deeper message to males in not only the United States, but all of Western culture; begging one to ask the question: is this how an ideal male is supposed to look an act? If one doesn’t conform to these stereotypes presented in the ad, will a male be subjected to ridicule and alienation from his fellow males who decided to conform?
The answer is not so clear cut as one might imagine. From a young age, we see the distinctions between genders begin to arise. June Pervis states in “Achievement and Inequality in Education” that stereotypes such as boys are more aggressive and girls are more passive arise at a very early stage in a human development, often at the preschool level. This is the stage in all our lives where people being to create distinctions and groups based on gender. Gender identification becomes essential to human societal interaction and effectively sets the “normal” way that each specific gender is supposed to act with members of the same sex and consequently members of the opposite sex. The way that males are supposed to live their lives are distinguished so greatly from females in order to establish a set way to act. A classic example of gender nonconformity is when a female plays a male sport, for example football. Football, typically a male dominated sport played by males, worshiped by males, and watched by males, is an activity that has been associated with male cultural values ("norms") for years. Because men identify women as being submissive, non-aggressive, and feeble compared to men, the idea of a women playing or even associating with a sport like football goes against the ideals and subconscious practices regarding gender that men have. So, when a female decides she wants to play football, the gender roles are effectively broken and the conformity that existed in the set roles of each gender are broken; causing confusion and discomfort, two feelings that humans tend to stray away from. From the other prospective, if a male plays a typical female sport he can expect to be called “not man enough,” “homo,” “queer,” or not a “real man,” all because he is being a nonconformist in regards to the male gender, and a conformist to a sport embraced by a larger female audience. This is one of the plights of growing up a male in America. We as males are groomed-both on a conscious and subconscious level-beginning at an early age to be a rugged individual, rough, tough, and decisive; like Lebron James on the cover of “GQ.” But what if a male doesn’t have one of these traits and has no plans to acquire it? I guess the common phrase one could use is that you are shit out of luck; and in my opinion, that is completely correct. How can you have these “manly” traits if they go against your biological makeup? You would essentially be living a lie and cheating yourself. So, it seems as though that for many males growing up in America, living a lie and manifesting traits that our culture vales them to have is an integral part of their lives and culture in general.
My earliest memory of I have of me physically witnessing this gender distinction and the consequent reaction of males and females (all adults) was maybe when I was four or five years old. I went to a friend’s house across the street and this friend of mine-who happened to be four years older and showed me many things we deem “masculine,” for example, a Playboy when I was six-in hopes to hang out. My friend was in the shower at the time and his mom told me to wait in his room. I next part is a bit fuzzy but somehow I ventured into my friends younger sister’s room, although she was a year older than me. It was in this room where I watched this girl dress up a life-sized Barbie and try on some of the outfits over her clothes. The clothes were pink and lacy, many of which I can describe like a spider web only thicker. This went on for quite some time until the girl ran out of Barbie outfits and attempted to put her on clothes from her drawer on the doll. In this time my friend had been watching me from the door in shock; I only realized he was there when he screamed “gay pansy!”(I knew that meant something bad due to his reaction) and proceeded to immediately tell his dad who-now that I look back on it-had a very odd expression on his face when he discovered me doing something this feminine. It was if I had done something taboo or unorthodox. Had I done something wrong? Although I was only four years old I knew because of my friends and his father’s reaction that what I had done was “different.” I knew from that moment on to stay away from pink, Barbie’s, girls clothing, and consequently girls themselves out of fear; it didn't matter if I enjoyed playing Barbie, that wasn't the manly thing to do. I didn’t want to have people look at me or say what they said to me again; and even though I was so young at the time, the experience stuck. I learned my lesson to stray away from girls and their actions because what they do is different what I should be doing.
Although culture does impact how men are identified, one can’t deny the fact that our genetic make-up does play a role in determining who we are. Men are biologically the more masculine and more dominate (in regards to size) than our female counterparts; it’s just the way humans are made, although the genetic differences are subtle. So why go into all this thought about how the media or certain people influence the way we are? Obviously, biology and genetics makes males unique from females, but our culture and our media exacerbates and defines those traits to an extent where the two sexes are culturally differentiable from each other. For example, the typical male is portrayed in the media as having "alpha-male" characteristics such as dominance. This portrayal is everywhere, one just needs to look at any television show or movie. More often than not, the protagonist in a multitude of different media outlets is more-often-than-not a decisive male who knows how to get the job done; while the stereotypical role of the submissive "damsel-in-distress" is adhered to for women. One clear example of these stereotypical gender roles in the media is in the classic film "Die Hard" staring Bruce Willis. This movie fits the mold outlined previously because Willis is the rough, individual male who saves the day from the terrorist and gets the girl in the end. Now, while this makes for successful movie making (after all, we want to see the protagonist succeed and more often than not, get the girl) what message is the media sending to people, especially young and impressionable males and females? Apparently these roles that cultural has assigned for me and women need to be adhered to in order to be accepted, weather it be by people in general or Hollywood. These roles for gender are so clearly defined in the media that it seems as though our culture has accepted them, with the exception of only a few groups noticing and taking some action against the problem. Differences that might not have been so extreme due to predetermined genetics are hence pushed that extra step to the point where when these norms are not adhered to; there is a cultural and biological reaction to the difference. Not only are people experiencing a reaction on a biological level, but the cultural level comes into play as well. This effectively creates a society where being a male and female is so clearly defined that in order to be mutually accepted, a male must adhere to everything that his culture deems fit for masculinity to endure.



A conservative perspective on masculinity is here: http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin279.htmTake note that the author is pastor of a Baptist Church. I found this article to be quite comical.

This link describes how males are portrayed in the media; usually fitting all of the common stereotypes associated with the dominate and masculine male.
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/stereotyping/men_and_masculinity/masculinity_defining.cfm

THE "AMERICAN DREAM" TODAY


The “American Dream” has its roots in the Declaration of Independence; a document which has held its own for over two hundred years and paved the way for the creation of a new nation. Although the Declaration has experienced no changes over its long life, the ideal of the American Dream has changed so drastically that our forefathers would have a difficult time recognizing and distinguishing the differences that exist between the Dream in 1776 versus the Dream in 2010.
(I can remember my first experience experiencing the materialistic drive that exist-seeming implanted in all Americans brains-when I visited New York City for the first time in August 2001. Times Square at night was one of the most miraculous things I had ever seen; and yet I felt compelled to buy everything that the advertisements were displaying to me. It was just an impulse; but is that impulse just a child's mind experiences when reacting to the multitude of various stimuli, or could it be something all humans experience, rather, all Americans experience? Everyday we see the mass societal consumerism that devours millions of people. It is in fact the driving force that keeps our economy going, but it is also the only way to measure success in our present day world and consequently, the only way to aptly achieve the American Dream in the eyes of society. What we buy, effectively becomes us: who we are, who we associate with, what we do. It all comes back to the status that comes along with our materialism ideals that Americans seem to value so frivolously. Sadly though (or is it really that bad of a thing?) this is a natural fact that doesn't seem to be changing anytime too soon.)
So at first the American Dream was an ideal that through hard work, anything is possible in America, the “Land of Opportunity.” Immigrants poured into the country over its long history in search of this Dream, many finding it and others making the best out of their own particular situation. Today, I believe the Dream is much different; one that embraces the materialistic tendencies that our society has. It can be seen everywhere, this “want” mentality; and it is only getting worse as the new generations of Americans come of age. The idea that an American will acquire a material possession by putting minimal or even no work into paying for that possession is something quite common. This has its roots in the fact that the standard of living is so high in the United States and the United States has one of the highest distribution of wealth in the whole world. Due to this fact, spending extra money-often times by parents on their kids-on material possessions is common. This can be described as a mass-spoiling across the country. Although this might not pose a problem right away, what happens when this generation (my generation) grows up and enters the work force? Sure, there will be the leaders and innovators-there always are, its in our nature not only as humans but as Americans to innovate-but the rest American kids who were subject to a lack of any work and yet still gaining possessions will grow up to have the same ideals. The old cliché statement is that bad habits tend to stick, but it is quite true. In short, the American Dream today is essentially being the most materialistic person as possible but also retaining that cultural stereotype of the "lazy American". We compete against each other in many aspects of our lives, but since we are materialistic in nature and our country advocates this to the maximum, the envelope is pushed to the extreme. Advertisements effectively tell the masses that having all these possessions will make us better than the next person (playing into the capitalist ideal of competition that our country is built on) and essentially give us pseudo-happiness based solely on the amount of material possessions that we have.
Fueling this new perception of the American Dream is the astronomical amounts of consumerism that exist within out country and the world. Charles Kettering, from General Motors, summed up consumerism in the United States very well: "The key to economic prosperity is the organized creation of dissatisfaction". Kettering said this over 75 years ago, and his prediction has essential come true. What Kettering was trying to convey is that Americans are constantly dissatisfied with what they have and are always willing to buy new things in order to achieve a higher perceived status by the ones in their class. An aspect of America-which has been criticized-is the presence of social classes based primarily on monetary worth. It is due to these classes that people attempt to define themselves in that class by having the most material possessions that society values.
The perpetual desire to succeed (the old aspect of the American Dream that our country was essentially built on) can now only be achieved by the movement between social classes defined by monetary worth, and only accomplished by playing into the mass consumerism that has enveloped our nation. This now brings up the point that the American Dream has metamorphosed into a completely different entity; and has manifested new ways of chasing down the “Dream” itself. But going back to Kettering’s idea of a perpetual dissatisfaction with the possessions-and people-that are in a person’s life, can a real “dream” ever be achieved? The denaturing of a human into something that only cares about unreal and superficial things is to destroy the element that makes us human: the ability to show compassion and love for real things like the people in our lives. Today it seems as though humans are degrading themselves into beings that are of lesser worth to themselves and consequently each other. Media has its hand is this, there is no doubt. The objectification of women and extreme selling power that advertisement firms acquire to markets is eons ahead of what it used to be in years past. This only plays into society’s materialistic tendencies, promoting consumerism, and destroying what makes us human. In fact, the sole purpose of ads is to inform people about a specific product; hence increasing awareness about said product, making people want to buy the product. If the modern day goal of the "American Dream" is to be as material comfortable as possible, the media and the ads that the media displays only fuel society's desire for this form of success.
So is the American Dream dead? In a sense it is. The dream our great-grandparents would recognize is long gone and has been dead for years. But with the degrading of humans into animals that only care about material possessions instead of what really makes us who we are, the question is raised, can something non-living really have a dream? That question seems irrational; but if Americans are constantly being turned into people with the same mindset, society will come to a standstill.


The never-ending cycle which we can't seem to break...

This video describes how the rebirth of materialism in America began to occur post-World War Two. People began to want more material goods which eventually over time led to people becoming more materialistic in nature.
http://www.helium.com/items/201652-the-rebirth-of-materialism-in-america
This article looks at consumerism from a different point of view. Instead of associating consumerism with material products that people can be seen purchasing at the mall, this author shows how Americans are the largest consumers of food, despite the fact that we only make up roughly 5% of the Worlds population.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/12/arts/television/12foot.html?_r=1&scp=12&sq=consumerism&st=cse
This final article related to consumerism provides a vast amount of information on the the topic as well as specific insights into products that the World tends to consume more than others including tobacco and beef. It also has visuals to help the reader grasp the topic as well. The domain name of the website sums up consumerism well: global issue. And this is essentially what consumerism is. If steps are not taken to combat this aspect of human nature, the outlook society can have on the future is a bleak one at best.
http://www.globalissues.org/issue/235/consumption-and-consumerism

REPRESENTATION OF DIFFERENCE

Just like males and females are distinctly represented in culture, sexual orientation of the genders fall into the same category of difference as well. Weather a person is gay, straight, or bisexual has seeming becoming an integral and quintessential aspect of our cultural mold, with “straight” being the answer the majority of society seems to value, hence associating the most comfort with. With comfort comes acceptance, and with discomfort comes alienation. The emergence of the subculture associated with homosexuality is testament to this fact. It seems only logical: if there was mutual acceptance of each others sexual orientation, there wouldn’t exist or be a need for a subculture based solely on what gender a person is attracted to. But, the culture has emerged, only engorging the differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals to a new level.
One text that displays these differences very blatantly is “The Birdcage,” a film staring Robin Williams and Nathan Lane. Essential the movie tells the story of two separate character groups. One group, composed of Williams and Lane, tells the story of how a gay couple living and owning a gay bar in South Beach reacts to the news that Williams’s son-who is straight-is getting married. The other group, comprised of Gene Hackman and Dianne Wiest, tells the story about how the ultraconservative Senator (Hackman) and his straight laced family reacts to the news of their daughter getting married to Williams son. Although the general idea of the movie sounds harmless, the differences between straights and gays are represented so distinctly that a blind man could see them. In the video to the right, we see how the homosexual characters of the movie are portrayed as weak, feeble, and feminine; playing into the common stereotype that all homosexuals have submissive and powerless characteristics (which is in fact completely false considering some of the best athletes in the world have been gay). The flamboyancy of the two characters are also displayed so vigorously that it seems as if Lane's character is actually a woman. Notice how they aren't portrayed as homosexuals who are powerful and strong, but as weak; almost to the point where Lane is fainting. The obvious stereotype of homosexuals here is only the beginning of the representation of difference present in this scene alone.
The rest of the scene is dedicated to Williams’s character showing and telling Lanes character how to fake his way at acting like a straight man because the ultraconservative family their son is marrying into is coming to South Beach to visit. So apparently in order to be accepted, the homosexuals have to hide who they truly are and act like heterosexuals, consequently gaining acceptance. Maybe it’s just me, but I feel as though this whole concept is completely backwards. Sure, it’s a known fact that there has been violence and animosity towards gays and that people do desperate things in desperate times; but the whole point of being human is the ability to accept a person for who they truly are. Lane and Williams were going to put on a faux show in order to act like people their future in-laws would like; defeating the whole purpose of acceptance. Since there is that representation of difference in our culture in regards to sexuality, predominantly heterosexuals have felt uncomfortable with homosexuals-accounting for the violence, hate-speech, and bashing against gays. The alienation of one group from the other has cause unawareness and fear, and only adding fuel to the fire is the overbearing amount of stereotypes that exist for gays. So, this scene effectively shows how conformity is the only way that acceptance can be achieved. Mutual acceptance for each groups differences would go against the societal code that has existed for too long telling how each sexuality should act and live their lives; therefore explaining why the ousted group has to conform to the inclusive one to be deemed as “acceptable” human beings.
Now, one must not think that the only factor contributing to representation of difference is a specific persons sexuality; in fact, the most obvious of these distinctions is in regards to race. Besides the fact that many races have vastly different skin colors and cultural practices from each other, distinctions between races are shown everywhere. In my mind I immediately think of professional sports being a prime example displaying these differences. Basketball has always been a favorite sport of mine and in today's world Blacks compose 79% of NBA team rosters, which is ironic due to the fact that basketball just fifty years ago was an all-white sport. The MLB is composed of 18% Blacks as well as 18% Hispanic, earning it the distinction of many as the "melting pot" of sports. Although there are many factors contributing to these distinctions including economic status and location, this representation is displayed to millions of people during the sports' season. Now, well the representation here are in no way aimed to evoke racial reactions and hatred towards each other, they nevertheless clearly show how races can be differentiated. For example, basketball which is a relatively cheap sport to play (you only need a ball and shoes) is the sport the majority of Blacks play in the professional sports world. On the other hand, baseball which is an expensive sport to play, is the sport the majority of whites play in the professional sports world. So, indirectly, a between economic status and what sport a person of a specific race is destined to play professionally. Also adding to this differentiation is the actual broadcast of the sport. If a child is watching a basketball game and he sees that all blacks are playing, he/she is subjected to these displays of difference at a young age, which could possibly have a lasting effect.
For more on this topic and interesting study done by Wilbert Leonard, follow this link here http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6401/is_n4_v20/ai_n28696193/?tag=content;col1
So what could be the consequences of such differentiation between races and sexualities? The most obvious answer to the question lies in the question itself: the creation of two distinct and separate groups of people which has obviously already happened. Heterosexuals-being the majority of the two groups-have the power to enact their will; and members of the majority will go along with those ideals. If these ideals involve stereotyping the minority group in question to the point where the majority beings to believe those falsehoods and act out against the minority (which has happened in regards to violence against gays), acceptance can be very difficult to ultimately achieve. Throughout American history we have witnessed what stereotypes, intense representation of difference, and consequently what that representation leading to segregation can do to a nation; especially with African-Americans post-Civil War era. Due to the representation of difference that existed-and still exist-between whites and blacks, America saw the segregation and mistreatment of blacks based solely on this difference. Years after legislation promoting civil rights was passed, the representation of blacks in regards to the representation of whites were still so drastically skewed and unequal that new generations were subject to the perils and tendencies of previous ones. Mistreatment of blacks still continues to this day because of their skin color and how they were represented not only in society, but in the major media outlets as well. Now, this tangent involving representation contrasting blacks in regards to whites was not in vein; my point being that the majority group (whites) had a major on how the minority group (blacks) were represented and perceived to and by society respectively. The parallel being drawn here is how are heterosexuals and homosexuals any different? One group is the majority and one is the minority; and if humans are creatures bound to repeat their history, no matter how dismal it might have been, the segregation and discrimination against homosexuals could continue for years, even after groups such as GLADD and other gay-rights organizations have fought to obtain equal protection under the law for homosexuals. In reality, although major movements have been made in gay-rights, society is still faced with the ever present representation of difference between those who are straight and those who are gay. There is no avoiding it. Undertones in society create an ever perpetual prejudice against gays, even though those undertones might be quite subtle. Whatever the case is, the consequences of these differences can have no good ending. It seems as though that the more we differentiate between two groups, the more animosity one or both can show towards the other, leading to outcomes that are unwanted and are not mutually beneficial.
Whatever the case may be, the bottom line is that differentiation between groups-usually a majority versus a minority-can have no positive outcome. One of the groups will be oppressed while the other will tend to abuse its power, pushing the limit further and further until a monster is created that takes years to attempt to destroy. In the film "Prom Night in Mississippi," we witnessed the remnants of one such monster in our modern world, some half a century later from when efforts were put into motion to stop segregation. If this phenomena can happen in our world today, where political correctness and social acceptance are two values that our society likes to think it has, the outcome for our country does not look so great after all. Are we as an American society doomed to forever differentiate and show the nuances between different groups? Or can we move on and face the future with an open mind? As always, its up to the newer generations to set the precedent that future generations will have to follow. But if these generations are already showing the symptoms of the past, then we are destined to just repeat the past itself.


A bill was proposed in Uganda last year that would sentence HIV positive homosexuals to death for having sex with a person of this same gender. The fact that this bill was even proposed shows how anti-homosexual sentiment is worldwide. Notice how the legislature did not include in the bill that straight people who are HIV positive should be sentenced to death as well.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2009/12/africas-culture-war-the-fight-over-ugandas-antigay-bill.html

THE POLITICAL LANDSCAPE

The debate over the topic of abortion has been a long one, with two equally-as-passionate sides vying to have their views be accepted on the World stage.The landmark Supreme Court case handed down in 1973 in Roe vs. Wade, established that it is a woman's right to privacy, guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, to have an abortion. Although there were several stipulations to the ruling regarding the time frame of the pregnancy in which a woman could get an abortion-which was an attempt to show humanity in addition to that the Court supported the right to privacy-two distinct and separate groups were hence created. On one side, you have Pro-Choice, people who support Roe vs. Wade and its guarantee of a woman's right to privacy. On the other hand, you have Pro-Life, people who disagree with Roe vs. Wade and think that people who get abortions for their unborn child are essentially murdering that child and hence should be outlawed. The two groups could not be more different, and over the almost 40 years that the standard rules regarding abortion have been established, the groups have solidified their views and consolidated their efforts into gaining as much support for the group as possible (comparable to political parties). Much of the efforts put in by the two groups come in the form of advertisements, a few are shown above. Being such a powerful topic that invokes a powerful reaction from many people, both groups advertisements play on this pathos, jeering the audience to have a strong reaction to gain support; not uncommon in many politically charged topics.
In general, abortion ads on both sides of the issue tend to follow the same format. Pro-Choice ads tend to focus on that Roe vs. Wade ideal of legal abortions and even go to the extreme saying that if a woman wants an abortion at anytime during her pregnancy, she has the right to do so. The "selling power" of the ad comes in the form of the Pro-Choice groups playing into the female idea of freedom from oppression from dominance and control; with getting an abortion being a way to rebel and go against that ideal. In fact, many describe getting an abortion as being a very liberating experience. Pro-Life campaigns tend to focus on the fact that abortions do in fact kill a living being. Many ads are quite provocative in nature, depicting actual dead fetus's or some grotesque image in an attempt to show their target audience the horror that abortion brings with it. This plays into the emotions of the viewers of the ads; hoping that the convincing power of the "real facts" will sway their mind against getting an abortion.
The first advertisement is a Pro-Choice one. It is essentially stating that the majority of people who support anti-abortion laws are men; but being the simple fact that they are men and are physically unable to ever become pregnant or conceive a child, they have no authority telling a woman what she can do to her unborn child. The caption at the bottom of the ad reads "It's your body. It's your decision," which is the "platform" of the pro-choice "party." Although the concept of this ad is simple in nature, just stating that the legislators and leaders who support anti-abortion laws should have no say in what a woman can do due to the fact they are of a different gender, it conveys the message that somebody can't make a choice for you; especially one that one gender is always going to make. This ideal goes back to the right-to-privacy ideal that women's rights and feminist groups sought after for years. Recently though, abortion supporters have been concerned with the future of their cause due to the fact that the new Health Care Reform Bill makes abortion coverage subject to cuts and possible elimination; probably in an effort to appeal to conservatives who would not even think of passing the Bill if some stipulations were not supportive of their ideals. The Bill makes it harder to get an abortion: an ultrasound pre-abortion as well as a physician detailed description of the fetus. Many pro-choice see these measures as a way to hinder a woman's right to an abortion, and obviously there is some infighting going on between the groups. In my mind, this makes a full circle back to the advertisement above. Again, the Pro-Choice supporters believe that "Washington" is hindering their rights. The phrase "Washington" (referring to of course the legislative body) could also be replaced with the stereotypical, yet applicable phrase of "old white men" who make the laws for our country. If old white men are making the bill and appropriating its funds, and they also can't get pregnant, then they have no right to tell a female what to do. Whatever the case is, Roe vs. Wade still stands to an extent, and as long as it does there will be people who disagree and want to change the outcome of the landmark ruling.
People who want to change that ruling are called "Pro-Life," meaning they support life of a fetus over death (or abortion) of the unborn child. The ad on the left is a clear indication of a Pro-Life group because of the content and its publisher; a Christian group. Christian-as well as many other religious-teachings are severely against abortion due to morality issues, so it is extremely rare that a religious group will ever support Pro-Choice ideals. The real message of the ad comes in the form of the content though. The left side of the ad depicts a cartoonist rendition of President Obama. He is quoted as saying "Whatever you do for the least of my brothers is what you do for me," which just means that every human deserves the same rights and treatment as one another. Not surprisingly-seeing as this is a Christian ad-this quote is from a verse in Matthew, a book in the Bible. Now it comes to the real message content part of the ad which depicts a fetus "responding" to President Obama saying "Gee, if I ain't the "least of these," then who is?" Essentially, the fetus is saying that he is the "least of these," because in terms of human life, the fetus fits this description. The fetus is not yet a full human, it is technically the "least" of humans ("these"). But, nevertheless, the fetus is a human and it deserves the same treatment of as any other. So, what the group is attempting to convey to their audience is that the abortion policy is advocating murder because a human life is being killed. The ad also indirectly takes a stab at Obama because being a democrat (most of which are supportive of liberal Pro-Choice policies) he has supported the woman's right to an abortion. Although this ad requires slightly more though processing than the Pro-Life one, their point of murdering a human life is shown to the people. Obviously, murder is something people don't support; and strong emotional reactions are always predominate when a child is the victim. The group knows this and plays on peoples feelings (ironically like the Pro-Choice group did with their ad) in order to gain supporters.
Abortion is a topic where the issue is so polarized that there have become two distinct sides which could not be more different. Many people are involved in the issue and often times arguments ensue. Whatever side people are on though, each group realizes that their opinion is equally as passionate about the topic as they are; and for that reason abortion will dominate the political landscape for many years to come. A middle ground is something that will be very difficult to achieve. Only adding to the differences are the fact that the Republican party is becoming increasingly more conservative and the Democratic party is becoming increasingly more liberal; hence adding to the differences and consequently expanding the problem into new political boundaries. It is the human condition to fear and sometimes loathe people who are different than us. If these differences are not overtaken, then there can be only chaos. This is what is happening with abortion. Unless action is taken soon, the end of this forty-year debate will not end.

For more information regarding Pro-Choice, go here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/opinion/10mon4.html
And for Pro-Life:
http://erika.bachiochi.com/docs/HowAbortionHurtsWomen.pdf