Should Anti-Abortion Advertising be Banned?

[Link]

I was considering going for option 3, but decided that advertising should be seen by everybody, and if its to graphic then it should be threatened to take down it should get enough criticism by people. But really for an advertisement exposed for the public it shouldn't be too graphic.

So you agree?  There should be certain community standards that don't need a case by case input from "the market."

I mean if someone wants to put up a picture of a vagina with semen dripping out of it on a billboard next to a primary school to advertise an adult video store you don't honestly think it should sit up there for a few weeks while you wait for a critical mass of emails to pour in to the government?

This is why libertarianism is a joke.  When you try and implement it strictly in real life it blows up in your face.  Of course there have to be preemptive government restrictions on advertisements that are displayed publicly.  Every adult video store that was looking for publicity would just put up billboards in front of schools, churches, etc. and wait for the news trucks to roll up.

[DC Al Fine]

No. Government shouldn't be regulating private advertising, period.

Ugh.  Absolutely no thought given...

That brings up a good point.  There is no private advertising in a sense.  The point of advertising is to make a message as public as possible.  To do that, advertising needs a public medium to grab people's eyeballs; the frontage of a public roadway, the public airwaves, public transit, etc.  If advertising appears in those collectively held areas, we can insist on a few modest regulations and fees. 

Yeah I think each individual person should have as many rights as possible.  But I don't think other people's rights should trample over mine with absolutely no regard.  It's like smoking in planes and restaurants.  Just because I have to travel for work and eat in restaurants doesn't mean I should have my cancer risk elevated just because someone else doesn't care about their health.  Smoke at home and look at obscene or disturbing advertising at home.  Don't plaster it where the rest of us are just trying to go about our day.

I think that's a fair point.

What's wrong with the case at hand is that its near impossible to interpret the signs as obscene. They're all variations of "Look at this cute baby, don't have an abortion". The author of the petition wants them removed because apparently women have the right to not feel bad about their decisions. Apparently anti-smoking and debt counselling ads are out the window. What complaints like this amount to is not a legitimate case about public standards, it's a case of a particular viewpoint trying to silencing contrary opinions.

[Person Man]

There was an anti-choice rally in Laramie a few years ago. They were gathered with their dead baby pickets behind an Elementary School. It made everyone upset. Then again, targeting regulations around schools is easily circumvented. However, you can't just protest gay marriage with pickets with graphic gay porn in front of an Elementary School. And you can't buy vice near elementary schools, either. I am open to some sort of regulation that makes it hard to have something that is visible from a public school. The Bill of Rights are repeatedly held not to fully apply when you are on public property or when you are on duty as a public employee (think DADT). Then again, this would be difficult to enforce because you can't have schools without windows.

[Redalgo]

Anti-abortion advertising of the sort shown is distasteful but warrants protection as free speech. If it were up to me though the government would not put up ads on its property aside from general public service announcements, equally allotted space for party ads or the candidates in upcoming elections, or otherwise statements with content neutral concerning different political, religious, and economic factions, social groups, etc.

[Link]

I think that's a fair point.

What's wrong with the case at hand is that its near impossible to interpret the signs as obscene. They're all variations of "Look at this cute baby, don't have an abortion". The author of the petition wants them removed because apparently women have the right to not feel bad about their decisions. Apparently anti-smoking and debt counselling ads are out the window. What complaints like this amount to is not a legitimate case about public standards, it's a case of a particular viewpoint trying to silencing contrary opinions.

The case at hand is not an example that I think should be subjected to a preemptive ban.  If you are going to have an abortion you should be able to deal with signs like that.  I think most people who have abortions don't view them as a happy thing... and neither should they.

[Redalgo]

Why though, Link? I don't see having an abortion or being a nicotine addict, to use those as examples, of good things to feel bad about. Accidents happen, sometimes people have good intentions but imperfectly act on them, do not have enough information before making decisions, and are affected by forces that are honestly beyond their control. Getting help for it is already a huge hassle and source of stress, and adding clever forms of emotional abuse to the equation is horrible on the part of advertisers.

Personally, my defense of the ads is not on grounds that they are good or even harmless. The same could be said of many forms of political propaganda and hackery in the media similarly protected in spite of their detrimental affects on individuals and society alike.

[Link]

Why though, Link? I don't see having an abortion or being a nicotine addict, to use those as examples, of good things to feel bad about. Accidents happen, sometimes people have good intentions but imperfectly act on them, do not have enough information before making decisions, and are affected by forces that are honestly beyond their control. Getting help for it is already a huge hassle and source of stress, and adding clever forms of emotional abuse to the equation is horrible on the part of advertisers.

Personally, my defense of the ads is not on grounds that they are good or even harmless. The same could be said of many forms of political propaganda and hackery in the media similarly protected in spite of their detrimental affects on individuals and society alike.

I don't understand your point.  You never say sorry or feel bad after accidents?

[Kushahontas]

lol

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

No, because the government shouldn't be regulating on this. That being said, I would hope that organizations who post such graphic images in public places receive enough pressure to take it down. Some of the pro-life pictures I've seen before simply aren't suitable for children.

Children Schmildren. Soon we'll be banning all the good movies, too.

And the video games. "Think of the children!" is probably the quickest path to tyranny, or at the very least to nanny statism.

The second being a category of the first.

Conservatives think it would be OK if GLAAD started buying billboards in Texas depicting explicit gay sex scenes.  Interesting...

If whoever is willing to sell them, I guess. I mean, it'd be pretty sick (not in the good sense), but it's not my conscience.

If you can acknowledge that certain things are better not shoved in people's faces, I don't see the problem with some common-sensical restrictions IE No dead babies, no frontal nudity. 

And take all the character out if ads!? Won't be long before they remove pictures altogether.

[RedSLC]

Absolutely not. It may be the antithesis of my stance on the issue, but it's still free speech. If a pro-life group wants to put up a banner, they should be allowed to.

[Redalgo]

I don't understand your point.  You never say sorry or feel bad after accidents?

I do, and I also feel bad after accidents involving even the lowliest forms of life, on a personal level.

But my point in this case is that if an abortion occurs early enough the main victim is the mother in having become stuck in the situation. It depends on the specifics whether she really ought to feel bad about making the choice. I mean, if a condom broke should the gal be ashamed of herself? If she is raped is she supposed to beat herself up over having an abortion? What if she is very poor or knows she would be an inadequate parent in some regard or is otherwise not up for the challenge at this point in her life, and knows there are already a lot of kids in the world needing adoption? And even if it is her fault for getting to that point, and she wants an abortion for selfish reasons, does she really deserve to feel awful about looking out for her own interests when it is probably for the best, all around?

Maybe we are just placing different amounts of value on the life of the unborn in question here. Before third trimester I honestly can't bring myself to see the unborn as more valuable than a fish or frog or other creature closer to having the same mental faculties. I do not think there are any souls involved, or that the beginning of life equates to the beginning of sentience, sapience, etc. Very nearly all abortions occur early on so I'm not talking about the partial-birth termination stuff. The ads in question may as well be compared to PETA fliers passive-aggressively vilifying hunters, fishermen, and ranchers regardless of their respective ethos, motivations, or conduct.

[politicallefty]

No, I believe it would be protected speech under the First Amendment. I take a near-absolutist position when it comes to free speech. In this case, those that oppose the right to choose should be just as free to show aborted fetuses as those on the pro-choice side should be free to show the consequences of unsafe abortions (such as wire-hanger abortions).

[Ebowed]

Redalgo is making a lot of sense here.

[Mordecai]

No. But good luck finding a network or billboard that will agree to let you put up pictures of aborted fetuses.

[New_Conservative]

Absolutely not.