3 major newspapers find this ad "too controversial"

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by JerseyGator01, Jul 7, 2013.

  1. Distant Gator
    Offline

    Distant Gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    4,058
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Upstate, SC
    Ratings Received:
    +380
    Sorry to post twice but I've been thinking about this issue a lot lately with my first grandson being born a few months ago. I saw pregnancy through the eyes of my daughter and her husband so those changes between the 80s and today have informed my opinion.

    I think in 100 years abortion will be seen like we see slavery today. I say that by extrapolating today's trends into the future.
    I could see the following happening...

    1) Birth control gets FAR more effective. This could be the morning after pill, or another device which prevents pregnancies before they start.

    2) This puts the abortion mills out of business and makes surprise pregnancies a thing of the past. Our birthrate drops, but "every child is a wanted child" so to speak. And these children are treasured because there are not as many of them.

    3) As technology improves parents see their developing baby up close and personal- perhaps they see him or her every single day on a home system. Perhaps they even get a glimpse of the baby's personality as DNA testing reveals what the baby will look like and even act like. The relationship between parents and developing baby gets deeper and more personal- it doesn't start on the day of birth any longer.

    So greater technology makes birth control more effective, which takes the self-interest element and the financial element out of the abortion issue, and our ability to see in the womb and get to know the baby increases awareness that THIS IS A PERSON.

    Today we look at the slavery issue and wonder how some people could own other people. It boggles my mind and sickens me- but I also recognize how blind we can be when self-interest and dehumanization are combined in an ugly stew.
  2. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,293
    Likes Received:
    327
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,351
    Exactly how do you suggest the media is "regulated" in the first place (aside from bandwidth allocation in broadcast media and copyright issues, which don't seem terribly relevant to this at all)? Newspapers aren't exactly a real heavily regulated industry. FCC content regulations for broadcast media? By all means I would like to get rid of them.
  3. tim85
    Online

    tim85 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,765
    Likes Received:
    276
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +961
    This is debatable, I would argue if you gave most conservatives the options to completely throw abortion off of the table, they would agree to. I think a lot of this, "in the case of rape/mother's health" has been more of a compromise with the left than anything else. I think most conservatives would be ecstatic to draw the line at no abortions whatsoever.
  4. rivergator
    Online

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    30,762
    Likes Received:
    312
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,362
    I don't know if that's true, but at least it would be consistent. I've never quite understood the claim that abortion is inexcusable murder, except in the case of rape and incest. Then it's OK.
  5. tim85
    Online

    tim85 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,765
    Likes Received:
    276
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +961
    I don't know that there are any actual studies to prove that, but I tend to believe most Conservatives who claim to be pro-life would happily take no abortions whatsoever, as opposed to the way it is now.

    I've always understood that the idea behind it is, outside of rape, sex is a choice. The personally responsible thing to do is to deal with the consequences of making that choice(pregnancy). However, in the realm of rape, that woman didn't choose to have sex, therefore, aborting the baby seems like a rational thing to some. Personally I disagree and am against abortion in any form for what it's worth. As far as incest is concerned, I've never really heard any arguments about that so I couldn't really comment. I think the rationale behind abortion in the case of a mother's health is probably pretty self-explanatory so I won't get into that.
  6. RayGator
    Offline

    RayGator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    40,326
    Likes Received:
    491
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Lakeland, Florida USA.
    Ratings Received:
    +1,167
    I have never seen that stat before. But if someone accepts it then it would be an overwhelming majority from the left. And I doubt very many of them would say they wished their own Mom had aborted him.

    And is anyone surprised that three liberal media outlets would not accept a Pro Life ad? On the other hand I doubt they would turn down an ad from a pro Abortion group such as Planned Parenthood.
  7. tim85
    Online

    tim85 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,765
    Likes Received:
    276
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +961
    I think this is an interesting way to look at it. If the three media outlets would do the same for pro-abortion ads, then perhaps they're not really worthy of criticism from any group; they're at least being fair. However, if they're being choosey about it, while I believe it's within their rights, they certainly open themselves to criticism a lot more clearly.
  8. gatorjd95
    Offline

    gatorjd95 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    Messages:
    641
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings Received:
    +100
    -The papers claim that the ad was "too controversial" is hogwash. The papers simply did not want to include an ad that advocates the opposite of its editorial board, ownership, etc.
    -The papers have every right to reject any advertisement, including this one. However, given the financial state of print media these days, the rejection of this ad demonstrates the papers' devotion to its pro-abortion stance.
    -I am pro-life, but struggle with the cases of rape, incest, and health of mother. That is not being inconsistent, as I believe, river suggested. Choosing between life of mother over unborn baby is probably the "easiest" circumstance/exception to pro-life values. Look at it from the perspective of end-of-life decisions. One can be pro-life and still recognize there may be circumstances where pulling the plug may be a viable option, morally and philosophically. Again, it's not inconsistent - and consistency only matters until it stops mattering - i.e., consistency in and of itself is not a virtue.

Share This Page