Quantcast

SHOULD GRAPHIC ANTI-ABORTION POLITICAL ADS BE AIRED ON TELEVISION?

Tigger Too 2012/02/09 15:08:23
YES
NO
Undecided
You!
Add Photos & Videos

CINCINNATI -- A fellow Republican challenging House Speaker John Boehner has aired a campaign ad featuring graphic images of aborted fetuses and questioning Boehner's stance on abortion. David Lewis is challenging Boehner in the March 6th primary. His ad aired during Super Bowl pre-game coverage on WLWT, and other stations in Cincinnati and Dayton aired it Sunday. Lewis said in the ad that Boehner betrayed abortion opponents by failing to cut funding for Planned Parenthood. The ad claims Boehner "has blood on his hands." WLWT is not responsible for the graphic content of the ad, and the station is required to give federal candidates unrestricted access to airwaves leading up to the election. "One thing I can do as a federal candidate is show pictures of mangled bodies of babies murdered by abortion on stations with FCC licenses," Lewis said.

A well-known attorney on First Amendment issues said TV stations may not limit the political speech of legitimate candidates. "If it's offensive and it's a problem, the First Amendment is there to protect offensive speech, and if someone doesn't like it, that's not enough," said attorney Louis Sirkin, who has represented "Hustler" publisher Larry Flynt in free speech cases.

He said political speech that might otherwise be deemed obscene may be limited to certain hours. "It may then have to be controlled by the special hours that have been set aside, if it's not appropriate for children, and should be played in the hours of 12 a.m. to 6 a.m.," Sirkin said. The FCC has determined that images of aborted fetuses are not indecent political speech. John Boehner's office said that the congressman's anti-abortion record is well known and cited his endorsement by Ohio Right-To-Life.

SHOULD GRAPHIC ANTI-ABORTION POLITICAL ADS BE AIRED ON TELEVISION?

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • melly~thwarting Satan since... 2012/02/09 15:42:59
    Undecided
    melly~thwarting Satan since 1971
    +14
    I find it odd...I mean, children watch the Superbowl, and I'm sure they wouldn't know what to think after seeing that. But of course, those people aren't pro-life, they're pro forced birth. Out of the womb you're on your own, kid.

    I find it appalling how much money, time, and energy we must spend defending something as basic as self-determination.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Jedi Master 2012/02/12 01:45:03
    NO
    Jedi Master
    +1
    no anti abortion ads should NOT be on tv.I think it is bad enough that meth ads are on tv, I do not think we have to advertise such graphic ads on tv to get a point across, I would say it would be like showing hard core sex on tv and letting your little kid to sit there and watch it, there are just graphic things that are getting advertised that should not be, Tv is changing for the worse.
  • Tigger Too Jedi Ma... 2012/02/14 08:47:54
    Tigger Too
    Thanks for your comments, Jedi Master!
  • Gale Routh 2012/02/10 02:03:48
    YES
    Gale Routh
    +1
    why not? it's all moot... anyways, people will just change the channel and some women will still abort because they don't want to go on welfare.


    THE BIBLE:
    the bible supported abortion, that was done by a priest, in god's name, in his holly temple!
    the 1984 NIV footnote of numbers 5:11-31 explained what "to thy thigh to rot, they belly to swell" meant: numbers 5:21 "or causes you to have a miscarrying womb and barrenness" to CAUSE a miscarrying womb IS an abortion.


    'Ephraim, as I saw Tyre, is planted in a pleasant place; but Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer." Give them, O LORD -- what wilt Thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts...Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit; yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.'

    HOSEA 9-16

    the judeo-christian god is a myth and historical evidence proves it.
    3.3.3 ATHEISM: A HISTORY OF GOD (Part 1) Evid3nc3
    2nd Foundational Falsehood of Creationism-AronRa
    Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 36)- Thunderf00t
    Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 29)
    Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 28)

    http://www.evilbible.com/god
    http://skepticsannotatedbible...


    THIS IS THE LAW:
    ABORTION IS A CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGH...









































    why not? it's all moot... anyways, people will just change the channel and some women will still abort because they don't want to go on welfare.


    THE BIBLE:
    the bible supported abortion, that was done by a priest, in god's name, in his holly temple!
    the 1984 NIV footnote of numbers 5:11-31 explained what "to thy thigh to rot, they belly to swell" meant: numbers 5:21 "or causes you to have a miscarrying womb and barrenness" to CAUSE a miscarrying womb IS an abortion.


    'Ephraim, as I saw Tyre, is planted in a pleasant place; but Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer." Give them, O LORD -- what wilt Thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts...Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit; yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.'

    HOSEA 9-16

    the judeo-christian god is a myth and historical evidence proves it.
    3.3.3 ATHEISM: A HISTORY OF GOD (Part 1) Evid3nc3
    2nd Foundational Falsehood of Creationism-AronRa
    Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 36)- Thunderf00t
    Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 29)
    Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 28)

    http://www.evilbible.com/god
    http://skepticsannotatedbible...


    THIS IS THE LAW:
    ABORTION IS A CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT SUPPORTED BY THE RIGHTS TO PRIVACY, THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT, AND THE 13TH AMENDMENT.

    NO HUMAN ( that means the FETUS, too) has a right to life or any due process rights by the 14th amendment to use another human's body or body parts AGAINST their will, civil and constitutional rights: that's why you are not forced to donate your kidney---the human fetus is no exception; this is supported by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment AND 13th amendment, which makes reproductive slavery unconstitutional.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    "Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. "

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    this makes viability unconstitutional because pregnancy is not a crime.

    consensual sex=/= a legal, binding contract to an unwanted fetus to live; and abortion is not murder, the unlawful killing with intent.



    THIS IS SCIENCE:
    FETUS IS NOT A BABY (GOOGLE THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CHART), but a parasite because the classification of the biological relationship that is based on the behavior one organism (fetus) and how it relates to the woman's body:

    as a zygote, it invaded the woman's uterus using its TROPHOBLAST cells, hijacked her immune system by using NEUROKININ B and HCG--- so her body doesn't kill it, steals her nutrients to survive, and causes her harm or potential death.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    "The placenta functions as an immunological barrier between the mother and the fetus, creating an immunologically privileged site. For this purpose, it uses several mechanisms:
    It secretes Neurokinin B containing phosphocholine molecules. This is the same mechanism used by parasitic nematodes to avoid detection by the immune system of their host.[2]"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    " Due to its highly-negative charge, hCG may repel the immune cells of the mother, protecting the fetus during the first trimester. It has also been hypothesized that hCG may be a placental link for the development of local maternal immunotolerance."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    "It is also possible for a symbiotic relationship to exist between two organisms of the same species."
    http://www.answers.com/topic/... -- Gale's Science of Everyday Things.

    just like a parasitic twin --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    "an animal or plant that lives in or on another (the host) from which it obtains nourishment. The host does not benefit from the association and is often harmed by it"
    http://www.thefreedictionary....

    pregnancy CAUSES HARM: http://www.thelizlibrary.org/...


    THE FETUS DOESN'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO FEEL PAIN --WHEN MOST ABORTIONS OCCUR.
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/...
    (more)
  • Tigger Too Gale Routh 2012/02/10 23:25:01
    Tigger Too
    Thank you for your very in-depth and well-reasoned comments, Gale!
  • Jedi Ma... Gale Routh 2012/02/14 22:17:54
    Jedi Master
    +1
    it maybe a right but abortion is wrong, abortion is killing something that deserves a life
  • Bocephus 2012/02/09 22:08:09 (edited)
  • Tigger Too Bocephus 2012/02/10 23:25:57
    Tigger Too
    +1
    Thanks for your comments, Bocephus!
  • Bocephus Tigger Too 2012/02/10 23:34:50
  • elijahin24 2012/02/09 21:58:10
    Undecided
    elijahin24
    +2
    Can we show graphic anti-gun ads on TV? Maybe actual footage of someone being shot in the head? Or, I've got it, there was a girl on 20/20 who blew her face off with a shot-gun. We could have a close-up of what's left of her face, while she talks about living without eyes or a nose.
    Chrissy s new face
  • Tigger Too elijahin24 2012/02/10 23:26:58
    Tigger Too
    Thanks for your comments, elijahin24!
  • Undecided
    Algor. Mortis. - ҎԊǢɬ Physician
    +1
    If they want, it's not like they're gonna change anyone's opinion, they're just gonna make a bunch of people sick
  • Tigger Too Algor. ... 2012/02/10 23:27:26
    Tigger Too
    Thanks for your response, Algor!
  • Lady Whitewolf 2012/02/09 21:21:38
    NO
    Lady Whitewolf
    +1
    HELL NO!
  • Tigger Too Lady Wh... 2012/02/10 23:28:08
    Tigger Too
    +1
    Thanks for your response, Lady Whitewolf!
  • Wahvlvke 2012/02/09 18:30:55
    Undecided
    Wahvlvke
    +1
    You can't show obie ... the best argument FOR abortion there is.
  • Tigger Too Wahvlvke 2012/02/10 23:29:21
    Tigger Too
    Thanks for your response, Wahvlvke!
  • Wahvlvke Tigger Too 2012/02/11 13:25:06
    Wahvlvke
    +1
    You are welcome.
  • edifyguy 2012/02/09 16:47:00
    YES
    edifyguy
    +2
    It's SUPPOSED to be a free country, in which we are free to express our ideas, and if they offend you, you are free to turn off the TV. Besides, how can you not be against ripping up babies? That's not an anti-abortion ad; it's a pro-HUMANITY ad!
  • Tigger Too edifyguy 2012/02/10 23:32:11
    Tigger Too
    Yes, the First Amendment guarantees the free speech rights of legitimate candidates for public office. However, I sure wouldn't want my kid to see such a political ad. I'd have a hell of a time trying to explain it to him. Thanks for your comments, edifyguy, and have a great weekend!
  • edifyguy Tigger Too 2012/02/12 14:46:46
    edifyguy
    +1
    That is the entire point of the ad. How do you explain the fact that some people think that it's OK to mangle babies just because their mothers don't want to raise them? It is drawing attention to the barbarism that has galloped into our society. It sounds like it worked at least once.....
  • Tigger Too edifyguy 2012/02/14 08:53:42
    Tigger Too
    That may be the entire point of the ad, but showing aborted fetuses in a political TV commercial is definitely not appropriate for children to see, and there is always the chance that they WILL see it. IMO, right-to-life advocates can get their point across without showing graphic ads on TV or in flyers they hand out. If a woman is hellbent for leather on terminating a pregnancy, anti-abortion ads will not change her mind.
  • edifyguy Tigger Too 2012/02/17 00:12:21
    edifyguy
    +1
    You could be wrong about changing her mind. I guess I think that it is potentially appropriate to show children the mangled babies so they don't make mangled babies themselves later and have guilt issues and a dead child. It illustrates how absurd the whole issue really is.
  • Tigger Too edifyguy 2012/02/18 01:43:37
    Tigger Too
    +1
    I must respectfully disagree with you on this issue. I wouldn't want my son to see "mangled babies" in a political TV ad, and then have to try to explain it to him. If a child is too young to be fully knowledgeable about sex education, then I don't think they should be told about things they can't possibly comprehend. Just as I wouldn't want my kid to be exposed to graphic pictures and lessons about how a baby is made, I don't want him to be told about the consequences of having babies and then aborting them either.
  • edifyguy Tigger Too 2012/02/18 19:53:25
    edifyguy
    +1
    I agree with you to a point, though I do think that seeing baby sausage at a young age is likely to have a positive effect, if a very jarring one, on a child, whereas seeing graphic depictions of sexuality is almost certain to have a negative effect. You certainly have the right and responsibility as a parent to strive to keep such disturbing imagery away from your son if you believe it will be harmful to him. The government has no place in deciding what we can and can't see, IMHO.
  • Kaimeso 2012/02/09 16:45:19 (edited)
    Undecided
    Kaimeso
    +3
    Funny how the conservative base can use disgusting images like these for political purposes but are "Oh so disgusted" if they see two lesbians or two gay males holding hands or kissing in public,...



    Well in truth most of them are turned on by the lesbians so they don't have to much problem with that, only wishing they could get in bed with them.
  • Tigger Too Kaimeso 2012/02/10 23:33:40
    Tigger Too
    I'm suspicious of some conservatives who are outspoken homophobes. In some cases, methinks they dost protest too much. Thanks for your comments, Kaimeso!
  • Willski 2012/02/09 16:34:45
    Undecided
    Willski
    +2
    Why not?
    they never bothered me. Maybe you normal people should learn to accept the truth of abortion, i have and it hasn't altered my support.
  • Tigger Too Willski 2012/02/10 23:37:18
  • Fannie 2012/02/09 16:20:27 (edited)
    NO
    Fannie
    +3
    Of course not............for those who think it is necessary. Now if they want to line their kitchen, bathroom and bedroom walls with those pictures, go to it. But no, not on tv, and not on the street, and not on buses, and not in schools, and not in churches, not on campuses...........NO they can not.
  • Superman Fannie 2012/02/09 17:11:06
    Superman
    +3
    While I find them offensive and they don't change my personal views, I'm glad to see a fascist like yourself wants to limit freedom of speech.
  • Fannie Superman 2012/02/09 17:27:42 (edited)
    Fannie
    +3
    How many kids do you have? Do you approve of porn? You think child and adult porn ought to be made available and FREE? Do you know Larry Pittman of NC? He has a plan for you and your tribe............Bring back public lynching, in your town square, bring a bucket of KFC, and twinkies and you and the kids are in for a special treat. Hang em HIgh
  • Superman Fannie 2012/02/09 17:34:01 (edited)
    Superman
    +2
    First, one kid. Second is the porn part of a political speech? Because we're talking about political free speech here. And third so you give me an anecdote of political speech that I disagree with as a means of getting me to say its ok to limit free speech? So does that mean I can decide what ads Obama runs?



    Bottom line is I don't like graphic abortion ads. My peer group had a discussion about this at the Super Bowl actually. BUT I believe in the constitution and that people can speak their minds. Maybe with some limitations - later prime time depending on how graphic. But you'd white wash everything - likely not just because you don't like how graphic it is but also its political position. Hypocrite.



    BTW - how far off are you from wanting to lynch people with different points of view? I doubt its too far from now.

    Edit - Fannie is clearly not right. I've said nothing to make me a hypocrite. And I'm not part of a "tribe of men" trying to "bring back the guillotine" whatever that means.

    I always think when someone blocks its an obvious sign of weakness. Clearly she is weak.
  • Fannie Superman 2012/02/09 18:12:55 (edited)
  • Bocephus Superman 2012/02/09 22:15:45
  • Tigger Too Fannie 2012/02/10 23:49:40
    Tigger Too
    +1
    Unfortunately, under a legitimate political candidate's First Amendment rights, these ads CAN be aired on TV. Thank God, they can only show them during the nighttime hours! Thanks for your comments, Fannie!
  • Rogue_Loner 2012/02/09 16:20:03
  • Flowers Rogue_L... 2012/02/09 20:19:45
    Flowers
    +3
    I was in shock, then I saw your sarcasm emoicon and was like

    relieved

    LOL!!
  • Rogue_L... Flowers 2012/02/09 20:23:32
  • Flowers Rogue_L... 2012/02/10 02:57:42
    Flowers
    +2
    i was being facetious lol I THINK I know you haha
  • Tigger Too Rogue_L... 2012/02/10 23:53:13
    Tigger Too
    +1
    And coming to a TV station near you...PUBLIC EXECUTIONS! [haha] Thanks for sharing your always-welcome sarcasm, Rogue, and have a great weekend!

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/20 18:19:05

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals