LIVING: Would You Watch A TV Ad For Abortion?
SodaHead Living
2010/05/20 22:15:58
|
|
|||||
|
68 votes
|
|
44% | |||
|
40 votes
|
|
26% | |||
|
47 votes
|
|
30% | |||
On the heels of a British ad campaign urging female soldiers to carry condoms to combat a wave of pregnancies among soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, England’s channel 4 is about to air the first-ever commercial for abortion services next week. The ad is from the Marie Stopes International, which receives more than 30 million pounds a year from the National Health Service to carry out abortions.
Incensed abortion foes have called for the Advertising Standards authority to ban the commercial, arguing that Stopes exploited a loophole in the country’s advertising regulations to get the ad on air. They’ve also asked publicly-funded Channel 4 to not take sides on the divisive issue. For-profit abortion clinics are banned from advertising their services on TV, but because Stopes is a not-for-profit it is not subject to those same restrictions.
The ad is slated to air for the first time on Monday after 10 p.m. and then throughout June, though no time restrictions have been placed on when it is aired after the first showing. Channel 4 has insisted it is not breaking any rules by airing the spot, arguing that it is up to viewers to draw their own conclusions.
Stopes provides 65,000 abortions a year and a spokesperson said the ad is about providing information so women feel confident about calling a non-judgmental source when considering terminating a pregnancy.
Do you think the ad should be aired?
WATCH
Incensed abortion foes have called for the Advertising Standards authority to ban the commercial, arguing that Stopes exploited a loophole in the country’s advertising regulations to get the ad on air. They’ve also asked publicly-funded Channel 4 to not take sides on the divisive issue. For-profit abortion clinics are banned from advertising their services on TV, but because Stopes is a not-for-profit it is not subject to those same restrictions.
The ad is slated to air for the first time on Monday after 10 p.m. and then throughout June, though no time restrictions have been placed on when it is aired after the first showing. Channel 4 has insisted it is not breaking any rules by airing the spot, arguing that it is up to viewers to draw their own conclusions.
Stopes provides 65,000 abortions a year and a spokesperson said the ad is about providing information so women feel confident about calling a non-judgmental source when considering terminating a pregnancy.
Do you think the ad should be aired?
WATCH
Top Opinion
-
Disko Pickle 2010/05/21 20:15:45I think the abortion ad …
+16Why would anyone want to watch any commercials at all? If I want to be sold something, I'll walk into a store when I choose to. I'm not interested in someone trying to sell me something that I don't need.
It's should be the last resort in some cases, but NOT downgraded to "contraceptive" choice.
They can advertise as much as they want: contraceptive pills, condoms, 24-48 hours after conception "abortion pill", abstinence, etc., but abortion as the same level of contraceptive? It's disgusting.
Besides, it's not an ad for abortion, it's an ad for abortion services, there's a big difference.
Calling it "murder services" is dysphemism, nothing more. You should avoid such arguments because they make your case look very weak.
A baby would be innocent by definition since they have not yet had the opportunity to anything to change that.
Unless they are capable of thought in which case they would be capable of impure thought and would then be capable losing innocence, but that also depends on whether or not you believe that ignorance is an alibi.
You also have to consider that there are also several other occasions where intentionally killing someone is condoned, so there is already a well established double standard.
Wars and capital punishment are mass murder and murder respectively, and they get a large amount of support.
If you send an army to kill people because you think that is the best thing for your country then you are effectively doing the same thing en masse.
If you send a doctor to kill a baby because you think it's the best thing for the mother then you are following similar logic.
Is it always wrong to kill an innocent? How do you weigh one life against another?
It's not a black and white issue so you can't say all abortions are wrong, it's not that simple.
The coat hanger pictures that are so frequently shown on protest placards are the result of anti-abortion sentiment. Girls who were so ashamed that ...
A baby would be innocent by definition since they have not yet had the opportunity to anything to change that.
Unless they are capable of thought in which case they would be capable of impure thought and would then be capable losing innocence, but that also depends on whether or not you believe that ignorance is an alibi.
You also have to consider that there are also several other occasions where intentionally killing someone is condoned, so there is already a well established double standard.
Wars and capital punishment are mass murder and murder respectively, and they get a large amount of support.
If you send an army to kill people because you think that is the best thing for your country then you are effectively doing the same thing en masse.
If you send a doctor to kill a baby because you think it's the best thing for the mother then you are following similar logic.
Is it always wrong to kill an innocent? How do you weigh one life against another?
It's not a black and white issue so you can't say all abortions are wrong, it's not that simple.
The coat hanger pictures that are so frequently shown on protest placards are the result of anti-abortion sentiment. Girls who were so ashamed that they got surgery done in back yards with knitting needles or coathangers, which was frequently fatal to both the mother and child.
By banning it all you will do is force the problem underground, and the past effects of that have already been seen.
If someone is going to get an abortion, don't you think they should at least have the option or surgery rather than using a coathanger?
What's up with the black and white issue? Don't get what you're trying to say.
I do think abortion is wrong, but it should have better publicity on the pro-life side, instead of just pro-choice side. If a lot of girls knew the regrets and consequences others have, not so many would be going through with the abortion. And I even have a great slogan :"If you're not ready to have kids, you're not ready to have sex."
You should say what you mean rather than trying to use emotionally loaded words to support your case.
If you are right then you have no need to use subterfuge.
It's not a black and white issue because there are many reasons for getting an abortion.
If it was essential to perform an abortion to save the life of a mother who is not physically capable of carrying a baby to term then most would agree that it is the right thing to do, even if it is an unfortunate event.
I'm not for abortion or against abortion, I just think it's a procedure that often gets misused and misrepresented.
Pro-life protesters seem to have a strange misconception that people don't realise the consequences of abortion. It gets a lot of coverage in the media and the general comunity. People are very vocal about the consequesnces of abortion, forums like this are proof of that.
The ads aren't about promoting abortion. They tell people, who are probably already experiencing regret, about what their options are. The option of not having an abortion is already abundantly clear, and there are counceling services for people who are still unsure.
That's a good slogan, but you have to consider that if everyone waited untill they were ready to have kids then very few people would ever have kids.
I am not using subterfuge, btw.
Got the black and white now, and you're right, there are a lot of reasons for *not* getting an abortion.
If it is essential to save the mother: the mother has had time to live their life. The baby has not. God put the baby there for a reason. Not for it to be killed. He is sovereign, he knew that either the baby or the mother would die, so there is no reason for murdering the baby.
I'm sorry if I made it seem like I don't think that abortion consequences aren't public enough (and I know I made it seem that way). But people *don't* understand, even if they *do* know. Girls need better education on it because they don't seem to understand the consequences.
What do you mean that if everyone waited there wouldn't be too many kids? Waiting until marriage to have sex because you are much more ready for kids than when you're unmarried. Most babies are born to married parents, who are ready for the responsibility. So there would still be an abundance of kids in the world even if everyone waited.
Killing intentionally is murder, regardless of the victims innocence or guilt.
"He is sovereign, he knew that either the baby or the mother would die, so there is no reason for murdering the baby."
Not really a valid argument because it presuposes that there is a god. If your argument relies entirely on god then you are arguing from a thological belief rather than a moral belief.
If you do what to argue from a thological point of view then you would need to consider that man was given the ability to choose, so you would have to find what God's commandments were for exceptional circumstances. Throughout the bible you will find many cases where there are exceptions to the rule and God has allowed something that would otherwise be forbidden.
You are also presuming to speak for god, or to use his name to support your case, which can be construed as vain glory. You probably know the stance taken on using the lord's name for vain glory.
It is best to stick to using your beliefs about morality to suport your argument. Theology is a dead end argument when it comes to abortion, no pun intended.
I do agree that people need better education on the topic, ...
Killing intentionally is murder, regardless of the victims innocence or guilt.
"He is sovereign, he knew that either the baby or the mother would die, so there is no reason for murdering the baby."
Not really a valid argument because it presuposes that there is a god. If your argument relies entirely on god then you are arguing from a thological belief rather than a moral belief.
If you do what to argue from a thological point of view then you would need to consider that man was given the ability to choose, so you would have to find what God's commandments were for exceptional circumstances. Throughout the bible you will find many cases where there are exceptions to the rule and God has allowed something that would otherwise be forbidden.
You are also presuming to speak for god, or to use his name to support your case, which can be construed as vain glory. You probably know the stance taken on using the lord's name for vain glory.
It is best to stick to using your beliefs about morality to suport your argument. Theology is a dead end argument when it comes to abortion, no pun intended.
I do agree that people need better education on the topic, but censoring it is not the way to bring the subject into the public forum.
There is too little sex education and it is too eratic and inconsistent. Most of the time it is limited to the objective biological details, but occasionally you will get a speaker to come and discuss it. The speaker can actually be a problem because they are usually going to teach their own personal moral rather than help people look at all moral aspects. Better education is needed, but you have to cover all aspects. If you censor some aspects then they are only going to be discovered later anyway, possibly with dire consequenses.
Most people, married or otherwise, would not have children until they waited until they felt fully ready. The trend now is for babies born to woman later and later in life, mainly because people are more concerned with spending a few more years holidaying etc.
If you only marry because you want to have kids, or because one is on the way, then the marriage is far less likely to succeed.
"Most babies are born to married parents, who are ready for the responsibility"
That is not a statistic I have read anywhere, although I have seen statistics that indicate the contrary. If you have a link to that info then I'd be interested to read it.
You need to consider that not all babies that are born will grow up healthy, happy or at all. Many will starve to death or die of preventable diseases, simply because they were born into a situation where the parents were unable to provide proper care.
Which would you prefer? The regret of having an abortion, or to watch your baby cry and shrivel as it slowly died in your arms?
Sometimes it could be a mercy killing.
if someone wants to get an abortion they have plenty of ways to find where to get it.
WEEK fetus - it will look like a large caterpillar. If YOU are going to "advertise", use the right "product".