Well, it was only a matter of time. In a first, a UK television station will air an advertisement for abortion.
You can see the story in this youtube video.
My first impulse upon hearing this story was that abortion providers here might try the same thing, and they probably will. Then it occurred to me that perhaps TV ads are the last thing they want.
Think about it. Two-thirds of every drug commercial you see on television in the U.S. expounds a ludicrously long litany of any and all possible side effects. I am no legal expert and most abortions being surgery rather than a drug, the same standards may not apply. However, it is conceivable that abortion providers might very well be compelled to list the very real side effects of abortion. If not, there are many people who would make it their mission to insure that they would.
The evidence showing the ill health effects of abortion are well known. Advertised drugs are forced to list even the most remote possible side effects, what would abortion providers be forced to reveal about abortion.
Imagine an ad in which abortion providers reveal that abortion can lead to loss of fertility, long term psychological trauma, depression, and even death. Truth is not friendly to the abortion industry.
Abortion advertisements may be inevitable in the U.S. and perhaps, just perhaps, that will be the thing that turns the tide.
Comments
Post a Comment
Unfortunately, I think that the abortion industry will obtain an exception to listing side effects, either by legislation or judicial fiat.
If they get them, we can too. We can have Silent No More commercials and maybe an ad showing aborted babies.
The clips from the commercial are chilling. The two women look like they belong in commercials for antidepressants, complete with cold, dim lighting, stringy limp hair, and hangdog expressions. Talk about manipulating emotions! And then they show a beautiful little family as if it’s a BAD thing. Ugh.
To Dave P,
Perhaps, if the abortion industry obtains legislation or judicial fiat permitting them to ignore the side effects of abortion in their commercials, we could do it instead. Of course, if we do, listing the side effects would take up the whole commercial. Do you think we should do this anyway?
C’mon people, lighten up. Can’t you see that Katie Simmoms is already burdened with two children including one who wants to play in the park? Personally, nothing makes me rage against the patriarchal anti-choice system more than the sight of children being children.
(Yes, I’m being sarcastic)
Well, what about all the commercials we have for birth control pills?
Since birth control can cause abortion, in a sense the US is just as guilty advertising abortion as the Brits.
They (FCC?) banned cigarette commercials years ago. Can’t advertise a harmful but legal product for fear it would increase usage and give big tobacco increased revenue. So, if they can ban cigarette ads, could not the same be done for the far more harmful but ‘legal’ act of butchering a child? There are great commercials out exposing the horrible effects of Meth usage. Couldn’t/shouldn’t pro-life organizations run commercials graphically exposing the effects of abortion, (both to the child and the mother)? The pro-abortion side could counter with ads showing the virtues of extinguishing an innocent life, but I doubt they’d be convincing.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.