Kenneth Cole’s Ridiculous Pro-Choice Campaign Compares Abortion to Shopping

I don’t mind designer clothes, but Kenneth Cole’s campaign comparing the “right” of women to chose to have an abortion with the “right” of women to choose which handbag they buy is just ridiculous.

More than ridiculous – it’s morally unseriousness. Even the video that accompanies the Kenneth Cole image featured in this post shows a woman anguishing over a decision — we think the decision to abort or keep her baby — then she walks over and picks up a handbag. Apparently that was the choice which was tearing her up inside.

Feminist Naomi Wolfe admitted in 2004 “I used to think of abortion as being somewhat trivial; the moral equivalent of serious root canal dentistry.” … but you won’t find many pro-aborts being so flippant about abortion now, at least in public when they argue for legal abortion “rights”.

Kenneth Cole evidently hasn’t caught up, despite all of its efforts to be contemporary and trendy.

As part of this campaign, Kenneth Cole has a series of “debates” surrounding “pro-choice” issues, such as “allowing a minor to have an abortion” and “keeping abortion regulated and safe.” How does Kenneth Cole think abortion can ever be truly made safe when we have to worry about minors getting abortions? I guess they’re too cool to worry about questions like that.

The current debate is “Making it the government’s right to choose.” Frankly, I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. And my job is to understand and comment about what people say. Currently 452 people are responding “No” to this question and 47 are responding “Yes.” Normally I love rocking abortion-related polls toward the pro-life side but this time around I see no reason to give Kenneth Cole more attention than I already have.

If you feel compelled to, however, you’re welcome to leave a comment. I would say something like this:

Comparing abortion to shopping is totally offensive to me. Because I believe in supporting women to choose LIFE I’m choosing NOT to support you. Everyone who buys from you had a mother who chose life. Maybe your next campaign should focus on honoring them.

[Cross-posted at]

43 thoughts on “Kenneth Cole’s Ridiculous Pro-Choice Campaign Compares Abortion to Shopping

  1. Since when is banning something “giving the government the right to choose”? The government doesn’t decide who will commit arson and what buildings will be torched. The government doesn’t decide who should become a rapist and who he should rape. The government does not decide who should embezzle money, and who from. So why is banning abortion equated with “giving the government the right to choose”?


  2. The governments right to choose?  Don’t they do that in China? 


  3. Considering the purses have all the attractiveness of an old fashioned diaper bag, it is doubly offensive.  I suppose the diapers are for her.


  4. If you review Kenneth Cole’s second quarter results, you’ll see why he is desperately trying to get publicity….ANY publicity.  Obviously, he is stooping pretty darned low.


  5. Kenneth Cole is totally an idiot, has he not thought of the future?
    For every daughter aborted, there is one less customer.
    A true feminist teaches her daughter to respect herself and achieve the highest quality of life.


  6. It is the most ridiculous discussion indeed…I will not be supporting Kenneth Cole any longer.


  7. Planned Parenthood in Baltimore had as its annual fund-raiser theme last year, “Celebrate the Right to Shoes.”  Abortion is just a play on words now, a clever pun. Or worse yet, a marketing ploy. The humanity of the child is completely overlooked.


  8. he’s had ad campaigns like this for as long as I can remember.  though I love his stuff, I quickly gave up buying them, for all the reasons you mention.


  9. I’ll never buy another Kenneth Cole product of any kind ever again. I’m done with this designer and this anti-Life attitude. Join me?


  10. You will never benefit from my buying anything KC again… and I will rid my closet of anything of yours too, tell my  5000+ PRO-LIFE friends, who will each tell their 500+ friends… Since you will be busy selling to women who chose to abort their babies (your future customers), it won’t be long before you are out of business!!!! That is a dumb business move!


  11.  He’s about to be aborted. MY choice. Nothing I want is worth killing anyone for!


  12. So, are they opposed to mandatory child support?  What of a man’s “right to choose”?

    What they are saying is that, unlike men, women really are not responsible for their choices.  Is that not sexist?


  13. It is so hypocritical to demand the government give tax money to clinics that do abortions, but will also demand that the government should have no say in whether abortion should be legal or not.  They can’t have it both ways.  (BTW, I completely believe abortion should be ILLEGAL!)


  14. ‎”The greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion. It is a war against the child. . . . If we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill each other?” – Mother Teresa


  15. Regarding, “…’right’ of women to chose….”, add an “o” in chose [choose]. It happens. As for the ad, it’s diabolically clever: stupid. As for coercion, I try to avoid forcing others.


    1. “You try to avoid forcing others…”
      So, if your child wanted to waltz in the middle of the highway traffic that would be ‘their choice? You wouldn’t ‘force’ them to stay on the sidewalk?
      Or since laws against murder ‘force us’ to abstain from that activity, do you denounce that law?
      And you must really hate the IRS….

      Forcing people to ‘do the right thing’ is the purpose of the laws we propose and pass.  Abortion ‘forces’ us to accept the procedure as legitimate; it is NOT legitimate and yet we are ‘forced’ to accept that truth until the law is repealed.  I guess I don’t like being ‘forced’ either.


      1. I will not make war on all the women in the world who make bad choices. I’ve made bad choices and am glad God worked on my heart rather than turning me over to war-mongers.

        As for my child, there comes a time when the child leaves the nest.

        I turn the other cheek and don’t seek punishment but rather repentance, mercy, and forgiveness.

        The abortions in this world are due to hardheartedness, including on the part of  rapists, pedophiles, the incestuous, and those who rob the poor blind, etc. Coercion has a hardening effect. The more it can be avoided, the better.

        I stand against the death penalty and abortion and war and all violence. I want to remain as true to all of that as possible. I don’t seek to be tempted by the likes of you.

        Murder is against the law of God, but I am not the judge and executioner. If I were to apply your standard to you, you’d be dead. You are not perfect. You have committed terrible sins.

        As for the IRS, of course I hate it. Taxes are evil. They have never been necessary. They only exist because of hardened hearts.


        1. Tom said: “I stand against the death penalty and abortion and war and all violence . I don’t seek to be tempted by the likes of you.”

          Well, Tom…it’s not me who is tempting you. I am simply the messenger. Satan is your tempter. As long as you are pro abortion, you are listening to an evil voice. And as for being against abortion, you sure sound like a proponent of it; the most violent of acts we can commit against humanity. Am I hearing you incorrectly?

          I am not advocating ‘war on people who make bad choices’ any more than I would advocate killing a child conceived in a ‘bad choice’. Two wrongs do not make a ‘right’. Making people accountable and to face the consequences of their decisions is not ‘war’. All choices have consequences and if that consequence is a life, we have NO RIGHT whatsoever to subject that life to the ‘death penalty’…particularly when that life has no voice in the matter (other than God’s voice…)


          1. I stand by what I wrote.

            In order to make “people accountable and to face the consequences of their decisions” in this case would ultimately result in making war on those who refuse. Your final recourse with them right now is violent coercion. That’s war. War doesn’t have to be on a large scale. War can be between just two people.

          2. So holding people accountable in your mind…is war. Incredible. No wonder we have such delinquency in this country. Grow up Tom.

          3. You don’t read carefully yet you’re nervy enough to tell me to grow up. You should grow up enough to know what “in this case” means. It’s specific to the abortion issue. It does not apply to all cases or situations.Are you unaware of bombing abortion clinics and shooting abortionists? What do you call it? There are people in this country who want abortion to be a capital crime. I’m not writing just to you.Also, certainly a child wanting to dance in a busy street is not analogous to all women seeking or obtaining abortions.Don’t be a bull in a china cabinet. Be more careful.Know wonder we have such delinquency (including violence) in this country. Grow up, dntmkmecomoverther.Try using your real name too, although your handle speaks volumes about your disposition, which comes across as decidedly antichrist. Your real photo would help too.

          4. No one here is proposing to bomb abortion clinics or shoot anyone. It is a tad bit naive to compare holding people accountable for their actions, something that most moral people do to each other, if only they existed, to terrorism.

            Abortion should be a capital crime for the doctors who commit it, certainly. Murder is murder, after all.

            A child wanting to play in a busy street is not only an applicable to a woman seeking an abortion, it is easily applicable to just about all of humanity.

            Does not God condemn “men of lawlessness?” Certainly that does not mean we have a right to, as well, but it means we should, if we do not want to be condemned, be men of lawfulness, and urge each other to be the same.

            It would be preferable to war on those who turn their back on humanity by murdering than to take the sides of those who in the modern era are warring on their own children.

            A note on my own username, it is a name a sibling came up with, and it sounded catchy.
            I am not going to go through the effort of “personalizing” this post because honestly, I have better things to do with my time, considering this is the second post I have ever submitted to this board, and I don’t intend to post much more, just enough to resolve this dispute. And I certainly don’t want to reveal my name, as the internet is a dangerous place, and there is no telling who will want to hunt me down (as unlikely as it is.)
            (Just saying before you rebuke me, too.)

            Also, I have to know, what does “Real Liberal Christian” mean? Are you saying you are a Real Liberal? (The term should be “Classical Liberal.”) Does it mean you are a Real Christian, and Liberal? (Quite a difference, considering how unliberal Liberalism is.) I think in part why you have gotten so much antagonism is because of the confusing rhetoric inherint in that name.

            God bless,

          5. I read fine; if you want to claim a Christian label, you have a lot of explaining to do when you condone abortion carte blanche. Don’t hide behind your faith when you are to weak to take a stand for the unborn; God is listening and wathcing Christians who have no backbone to take the proper stance for the innocent. Where in my response did I call for bombing or killing anyone? I confronted your acceptance of a procedure which is abhorent to God. In all my posts I never once advocate for violence; yet that is where you take your discusion. Anti Christ my rear end…I am so sick of dealing with weak kneed people of faith I could puke.
            So I will add to my last rebuke of growing up, to also grow a backbone and stand up for those who have no voice. You and others who think like you about abortion are the true brutes in this debate.

            You want real names and real photos ?… that can only mean one thing: you really do want to resort to violence by hunting down folks like me who take sincere offense at folks with beliefs like yours. That is precisely why blogs don’t use real names and photos.

          6. I replied to you, but I did it with a link. That reply was deleted. I didn’t delete it. My reply is long, and I didn’t want to continue nesting endlessly with ever-narrower replies. I cross-referenced for one reply to a new comment thread, but that was not very elegant. I wanted to avoid doing it again.

            I wasn’t aware that posting links in comments wasn’t allowed on this blog or post (if that’s why it was deleted). If that is the reason, it seems strange because there are links in other comments on the blog and this post.

            Anyway, in my reply, I took your points completely apart.

            You may find the reply on my blog. The reply post is dated August 20, 2011. There’s a calendar in the left column of every page. Just click on my name above this reply to go to the blog, scroll down to the calendar, and go to August 20, 2011. You’ll find the post.

        2. You’re delusional man! You say you stand against abortions but are ready to condone those actions. Rape, incest or pedophilia are not among the leading reasons for abortion.

          “The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to otherindividuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.”

          Taken from

          Abortion is never justified. I have never lost a child of my own and I do not have children of my own. But a lot of my friends have lost children, and we all suffer through the pain while countless people choose to ‘terminate’ these babies. Please, give them to us, give them up for adoption, but do not take a life. No one but God decides who gets to live and not.


          1. I didn’t condone abortion. I also didn’t say or suggest or imply that “Rape, incest or pedophilia are” “among the leading reasons for abortion.”

            You conveniently ignored the issue of those who rob the poor blind.

            Are you advocating arresting the women and punishing them or not? If not, if you are solely interested in reaching them and helping them, then fine.

        3. And also I am not declaring war on the women who choose abortion, I am declaring war on their actions. Condemn the sin, not the sinner. Work with them to change their minds so they grasp the gravity of what they think they are doing.


        4. Your argument appears to be that laws against abortion will have a “hardening” effect.
          Society exists because human beings have an honest desire to protect each other. Laws are oaths to protect each other—if they are legitimate.
          The only hearts a law against abortion would harden are already very hard. If anything should soften such hearts, it won’t be giving them the right to murder.
          Laws against abortion do not punish the woman, they punish the doctor who presides over it.
          Sure, our standards will destroy us; that is why we accept God’s standards, and his are merciful, but at the same time, just. If you observe what Jewish society was when it was under God’s rule, you will see that He made proficient use of laws. You can call them “coercion,” but an oath is an oath, and being born is itself an oath to give life, and damned be the man who dies unrepentant of betraying it.Additionally, you imply, (though I do not think you actually think so,) that rape, incest, other crimes of lust somehow justify abortion. Not so. Will you punish the child for the parent’s crime? God himself does not have the gall. (One of many good things about God.)God bless,


  16. Call me crazy, but I’m not so sure this commercial is a bad thing.

    Actually, I’d say the reverse is true: I’d go so far as to say that it is actually a great PRO-LIFE argument.  Here’s why:

    In addressing women’s rights/bodily rights arguments, you often hear the leading question, “Don’t you support a woman’s right to choose?”. 

    The correct answer to flip the tables is, “Absolutely!  Every woman should have the right to choose  – from her career path, who she wants to marry, IF she wants to marry, the candidate she votes for, the type of car she drives, whether or not she has sex and who with, all the way down to her favorite flavor of ice cream, her favorite color, the type of clothes she wants to wear, even The Handbag She Chooses To Carry. 

    “But we aren’t just talking about her life, are we?  And aren’t some decisions more serious than others?  Don’t we, as a people, say that no one has the right to choose to steal, rape, or even drive faster than is safe for ourselves and others?”

    Of course we revolt at the video – We Are Supposed To.  The video does a great job of fantastic job of showing that not all choices are the same.   Which is foundational for our argument, not the pro-choice one.

    Looking forward to the feedback!  🙂


  17. If I choose to purchase and carry a handbag, in 9 months I will still have a slightly worn handbag. If I choose to keep a preganancy, in 9 months a precious life will be born.  BIG DIFFERENCE.  Unfortunately, our society has become extremely narcissitic and likening a handbag to a baby is deplorable.  People have misplaced their values – buy a bag? / keep a baby? Really?

    Kenneth Cole went too far with this one in my book. I will certainly discourage my friends from purchasing any of his products.  I’m so glad that my mother decided to put more value on my life than deciding to have a nice handbag. 

    God, the Holy Creator, conceived of the child before it was conceived in the mother’s womb.  We need to value that decision.  God does does not make mistakes! 

    Choose Life!!!  It is meant to be LIVED!


  18. you have to carry a 6 month child. What can you kill that child as well?


  19. This is mostly a reply to “DrDisaster.” Nesting/narrowing of comments moved me to start a new thread. I will attempt to cross-reference at the bottom of that other/earlier thread.

    Jesus said take no oath. Here you are promoting oaths.

    Jesus said to them to let the one without sin cast the first stone. None did. Here you are promoting punishing the providers.

    In addition, anti-abortion laws certainly could be written to punish the women. You don’t speak for all who are anti-abortion. Why would you limit punishment to the one who performs the abortion on women who seek out that one? In your eyes, both are sinners in a great sin. What do you do with the woman who gives herself an abortion?

    When Peter attempted to “protect” Jesus, Jesus rebuked him. Jesus also told his disciples that they would be murdered. He did not tell them to “protect” each other from it but to rather embrace it. Here you are preaching the opposite.

    Are you still under Mosaic law? I’m not. I don’t stone the adulterous. I don’t kill my children for disobeying me by playing in the busy street after I’ve told them not to.

    Why did Jesus tell them Moses gave them the divorce law? Jesus instructed them that they were given that law because of the hardness of their hearts. Why do you need an abortion law? It is because you still aren’t listening. Don’t tell me what you all have been writing here to me is consistent with Jesus’s message. It is not. It’s not even close.

    You, DrDisaster, wrote the following of me: “…you imply, (though I do not think you actually think so,) that rape, incest, other crimes of lust somehow justify abortion.” You jumped to a false conclusion there. If you were correct, then I would tell women that if they are raped, etc., they are justified in obtaining an abortion. I have never said that and don’t plan to. My overall point concerns overall hardening. I’m talking about the big picture (the whole law, the Great Commandments) and how all the lesser ones must be consistent with those and vice versa. You (I’m speaking generally here about the vast majority of commenters on this post) appear to want to pick and choose and to self-license to hypocrisy while professing Christianity (again to clarify: not everyone here may be professing Christianity).

    I realize it is not easy to be consistent. When we know we are being inconsistent though, we are supposed to change from it.

    God over Moses punished to the third and fourth generations. Here you are appealing to “Jewish society…when it was under God’s rule.” You are also saying that we aren’t to “punish the child for the parent’s crime” and that God “does not have the gall” to do it. I don’t look to Moses. I look to Jesus. Moses is fine to the point where his teachings diverge from Jesus’s.

    It’s a strange turn of mind that takes what I’ve written here and comes up with the idea that I haven’t differentiated between and among people so that I haven’t lumped all together with those who feel justified in bombing clinics and shooting providers. How could I ask, even rhetorically, “Are you unaware of bombing abortion clinics and shooting abortionists?” of one here if I have already lumped in that one and the other commenters here with bombers?

    Why should one crime be a capital crime when another shouldn’t? Is adultery still a capital crime in your book? Is being a disobedient child? Why not punish the children for the sins of their fathers? Answer as Jesus would answer, not as you ordinarily respond.

    When Jesus convinced them not to stone the adulteress, was he advocating lawlessness in your view? Is it lawlessness that you think I’m advocating here or rather looking for us to be truly lawful? For the true Christian (and this is a point of logic), it is unlawful to stone an adulteress regardless of what any other law says. Do you disagree?

    When Jesus did not take up the sword, was he therefore siding with the iniquitous? Am I siding with abortionists because I won’t take up the sword (gun, handcuffs, jail, etc.) against them?

    As for the idea of not revealing your true identity while you are preaching here, in what way is that taking up your cross? So they hunt me down to hurt me for what I’m writing here, in whose company will that place me? Am I worthy to suffer in the name of Jesus Christ? I’m not a masochist. Jesus prayed in the garden that if it be God’s will, to take the cup from him. Do you understand what I mean?

    You asked about “Real Liberal Christian” but gave emphatic statements as to its meaning before even receiving a reply.

    Look, not only would I rather every female turn in faith from abortion (even a poor, weak, single mother with young children, which children would be deprived of their mother were she to die trying to give birth – a rationale used but not a justification in my mind but certainly a reason for compassion and understanding), I’m also opposed to homosexuality (a capital offense under Mosaic law). I wouldn’t even raise the issue except that your comments brought it to mind for the various self-styled liberals who have shown great hostility toward me, censoring me, banning me, calling me harsh names, complaining at my use of the term “Liberal” in the name, etc. The term is intentional. It has a direction in scripture. That’s a conversation that needs to be had.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *