Airing Graphic Anti-Abortion Pictures during the Super Bowl
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: Airing Graphic Anti-Abortion Pictures during the Super Bowl

  1. #1
    Community Host Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,771

    Default Airing Graphic Anti-Abortion Pictures during the Super Bowl

    ***WARNING******There is a graphic picture at the link. Click at your own risk. I have copied the entire article so you don't have to click if you don't want to. ****************

    http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=12823

    While the Super Bowl commercial has become a mainstream staple of the game, viewers in some markets will be shown something new, commercials featuring bloody aborted babies.

    Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, is running for president. However, Terry is not running on the Republican ticket, but is running as a Democrat against Barack Obama.

    Terry has already run political ads featuring graphic images of babies killed by abortion during the first and second trimester. The ads were part of a three day ad run in New Hampshire on WBIN. The ads consisted of four 30 second spots that ran in rotation that attacked Obama?s support of child killing by abortion.

    Terry is also planning on purchasing similar ads in local markets during the Super Bowl.

    While ads of this type have frequently been rejected by television agencies for their graphic content, Terry is using a loophole in federal election law that requires stations to run his ads.

    FEC regulations require television stations to run ads by a political candidate within 45 days of an election. This means that primary states that fall within the 45 day window will have to run the graphic ads during the Super Bowl if he purchases the slots.

    The campaign says they have ads ready to go in 40 markets, including Colorado. The first ad was purchased on Friday, January 6.

    While Terry realizes he stands little chance of getting the Democratic nomination, he said he is running in order to give pro-life Catholics and evangelicals in the Democratic Party a choice during the primary season.

    The difference between the candidates could not be more stark. Obama has 100 percent rating from militant pro-abortion group NARAL. While a state Senator in Illinois, Obama vetoed a bill that would require babies that survived an abortion be given medical treatment.

    By contrast, while with Operation Rescue, Terry was arrested nearly 50 times and incarcerated nearly one full year for his defense of the unborn.
    Debate Question - Do you feel that airing graphic pictures of aborted fetuses during the Super Bowl is appropriate? A good political move? Will this change the way you view the Super Bowl with your family if you are in one of the states that will air the ads?
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  2. #2
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default

    I don't know that I can answer this one in debate appropriate language.

    Seriously.

    Perhaps this pig should take his millions and use them to help women in trouble, women in need, and women who need support and love, not shock and terror.

    If that is airing I may boycott the superbowl. And I LOVE the superbowl.

    I was a big supporter of TEbow's moms add last year ~ This? No.

  3. #3
    Community Host wlillie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    6,469

    Default

    Inappropriate

    I think if the stations were actually OK with airing them I would have no problem. Sometimes I think people get disconnected from what's really happening to the fetuses and these shock pictures may change someone's mind. The disgust of 1,000's is worth the saving of just one baby (to me). I don't approve of them on billboards or signs you can't stay away from, but there are very few people who are forced to watch TV.

    I think he knows he's not going to get elected and wants to further his other cause by using this loophole. Which I don't think is OK morally even if it's legal. I wouldn't do it. The law wasn't meant for this. He actually states that he's in the Democratic race because he doesn't want to split the vote for Republicans. He outright says that 80% of donations will go to the ads, so it's obvious he's not really trying to run so much as get his message out there.

    I agree with the message 100%, just not the delivery.

  4. #4
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    9,859

    Default

    Agree with Melissa. Also, I would like to see the statistics on women who choose to abort a completely healthy baby/pregnancy at the stage that picture is shown. Or the doctor who would perform such a procedure. I call bullsh!t on anyone using a picture of a baby aborted at the end of the second trimester as a picture of a typical abortion. Whether you agree with the right to choose or not, that is just a grossly inaccurate portrayal.

  5. #5
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Khaki View Post
    Agree with Melissa. Also, I would like to see the statistics on women who choose to abort a completely healthy baby/pregnancy at the stage that picture is shown. Or the doctor who would perform such a procedure. I call bullsh!t on anyone using a picture of a baby aborted at the end of the second trimester as a picture of a typical abortion. Whether you agree with the right to choose or not, that is just a grossly inaccurate portrayal.
    Do you even know if the picture in the article you are speaking of comes from the ad? It doesn't say that.

    ETA: I just watched every one of the ads and that picture doesn't appear in any of them.
    Last edited by GloriaInTX; 01-11-2012 at 06:56 PM.
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  6. #6
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    9,859

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    Do you even know if the picture in the article you are speaking of comes from the ad? It doesn't say that.

    ETA: I just watched every one of the ads and that picture doesn't appear in any of them.
    It was the picture in the article attached by the OP, so that was the picture I commented on. If you have the links to the actual ads, I would comment on those instead. There are FCC regulations in place for a reason.

    The government restricts the broadcast of obscene, indecent and profane material to protect
    children from exposure to patently offensive descriptions of sexual or excretory activities or organs
    and to enable parents to decide what material their children will see or hear.
    (source)

    You can't just pick and choose when you want to the rules to apply. If you want to argue we should show graphic sexual acts, excretory activities, etc, especially during an event that is often enjoyed by the entire family such as the Super Bowl, that's a different argument than just okaying it because it's a cause you support.

  7. #7
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Khaki View Post
    It was the picture in the article attached by the OP, so that was the picture I commented on. If you have the links to the actual ads, I would comment on those instead. There are FCC regulations in place for a reason.

    You can't just pick and choose when you want to the rules to apply. If you want to argue we should show graphic sexual acts, excretory activities, etc, especially during an event that is often enjoyed by the entire family such as the Super Bowl, that's a different argument than just okaying it because it's a cause you support.
    It is linked in the article, it states the first ad is what they are planning for the superbowl. IMO it isn't any more graphic than the ads they show for feed the children.
    http://www.terryforpresident.com/index.php
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  8. #8
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    9,859

    Default

    Sorry, I wasn't clicking on his presidential site and the videos weren't in the original link. I agree that the picture in the article is not a fair representation of his ads. But yes, I do think they are more graphic and disturbing than say, two people having sex. Severed limbs and body parts of adults or babies are not something that should be exempted from FCC guidelines. I would feel the same way about anti war ads showing similar severed body parts during an event such as the Super Bowl. If we are debating whether those guidelines should exist, I think that is a separate issue.

  9. #9
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,515

    Default

    "I think the ads may be a punch in the gut to some people but maybe it is needed" Taken from the anti obesity thread (Sorry, I do not know how to quote to a different thread)

    Sometimes it is necessary to show or tell someone something unpleasant to make them understand what is actually happening. That said, I do not support these ads during the super bowl because children watch the super bowl and that is not something I would ever want my child to see.

    ~Bonita~

  10. #10
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    Sometimes it is necessary to show or tell someone something unpleasant to make them understand what is actually happening.
    You think that the woman whose very wanted child has to be removed at second trimester or she will die has no idea what is happening?

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions