Fetuses in Prime-Time? How Right-Wingers Are Exploiting a Loophole to Air Anti-Choice Propaganda

So this scumbag wants to force millions of Americans to view the bloody remains of aborted fetus, but showing our dead soldiers and their mangled bodies, for anti-war ads is banned!

Even showing the flagged coffins of arriving dead soldiers from Iraq was banned under the Bush administration. The hypocrosy is hurting my hair!

Originally posted by mikemck1976

It's not my logic.
It’s the woman’s right to choose, not mine. I just support the woman’s right to have the right to choose.
Who am I to say any different?

It isn't logical at all. Let's say that we as a society did all agree that destroying nuisance fetuses was perfectly acceptable. Why should only the woman make the decision? Did she conceive all by herself? Why should only she decide whether the male partner will be forced to 18 years of indentured servitude? If we are going to allow the female to choose to avoid taking responsibility for her actions, should the male not also have the same right?

Originally posted by windword
So this scumbag wants to forces millions of Americans to view the bloody remains of aborted fetus, but showing our dead soldiers and their mangled bodies, for anti-war ads is banned!

Even showing the flagged coffins of arriving dead soldiers from Iraq was banned under the Bush administration. The hypocrosy is hurting my hair!

edit on 20-11-2011 by windword because: (no reason given)

Run for office and show those pics. It should be equally permissible.

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

Originally posted by mikemck1976

It's not my logic.
It’s the woman’s right to choose, not mine. I just support the woman’s right to have the right to choose.
Who am I to say any different?

It isn't logical at all. Let's say that we as a society did all agree that destroying nuisance fetuses was perfectly acceptable. Why should only the woman make the decision? Did she conceive all by herself? Why should only she decide whether the male partner will be forced to 18 years of indentured servitude? If we are going to allow the female to choose to avoid taking responsibility for her actions, should the male not also have the same right?

only to a point.. it's her body, her cells, her nutrition, her health, etc. Not his. But I agree that if a woman wants to go through with a pregnancy, the sperm donor should have the opporunity to opt out of being dad... and it would be permanent.. no contact ever.

But then I have never been under any illusions that we are anything more than clever mammals. People sometimes use the argument that we have to live up to a more "civilized" life than animals... They are either short sighted, arrogant, or just hypocrites. As it is, we are the only animal that systematically obliterates its ecosystem and the ecosystem of other animals. I certainly wouldn't call that being "advanced".

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

Originally posted by targeting

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

Originally posted by targeting
They're pro life, but also pro death penalty. I'll never understand Republicans.

They are pro-infanticide, but prefer to coddle cold blooded killers. I will never understand liberals.

It's not infanticide. Do you think eating eggs is the same as murdering chickens? A fetus is not a human being. It will become a human being eventually, but it isn't one yet. Also I don't "coddle" killers. I simply want them to realize why what they did is wrong and give them a chance to repent.

Yes. Eating eggs is exactly the same as killing chickens. Did you think pineapples would hatch from them?

Then is boiling an egg the same as boiling an animal alive? Should it be considered animal abuse? By your logic it should be.

reply to post by targeting

Then is boiling an egg the same as boiling an animal alive? Should it be considered animal abuse? By your logic it should be.

Youre using animals that we eat as examples, to voice your viewpoint on abortion?

Who is being illogical now?

Seriously some peoples thought processes crack me up..........

No, boiling an animal alive isnt animal cruelty, infact i do it quite a bit when im making lobster, crab, crawfish, shrimp........etc etc etc..........and i find it quite tasty.....

How you cook your food is not a good analogy for pro-choice lol........

(shakes head)

People are really living in a dream world thinking the left is better than the right when they are not even close simple fact the left has more blood on there hands than any political group in Us History.

Dropping 2 nuclear bombs that killed hundrreds of thousands at a single time
The carpet bombing of Germany and Japan
The Vietnam War
Bosnia and Kosovo
Somalia
Pakistan
Yemen
Uganda
Libya
and assasination of foreign nationals and American citizens abroad all justified homicide by the holier than thou leftists not to mention there call for violence in recent months to kill Americans here at home for that little protest
and their nonstop "fight" hiding behind women's rights that have murdered over 50 million babies.

Sorry but the left have been exploiting peoples own ignorance for political gain doing the same things they decry the right of but of course it's all in the name of humanity.

Last time i checked a fetus is neither right or left and haven't been put on any terrorist watch list and has not committed any crime nor put on trial and been convicted of anything.

But of course the rational behind pro choice is it's not a human being but hey we all know they are always redefining the lines of right and wrong .

It' always wrong when a right winger does it but it's always right when a left winger does the same things.

Blah and Meh

Whats the problem afraid if people saw what they are killing they would stop?

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


I find it illogical to argue about abortion when the issue mentioned is clearly about the abuse of law and campaign money by a right wing would be candidate.

I say would be because I don't think this guy will get anywhere.

I think we should talk about how he represents the right wing well, as a blatant crook that's extorting money to finance anti-abortion propaganda.

Originally posted by Evolutionsend
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

 

I find it illogical to argue about abortion when the issue mentioned is clearly about the abuse of law and campaign money by a right wing would be candidate.

I say would be because I don't think this guy will get anywhere.

I think we should talk about how he represents the right wing well, as a blatant crook that's extorting money to finance anti-abortion propaganda.

abuse of campaign money? Its their campaign , they can use the campaign money to campaign however they want, hence "Campaign money".......

you may not agree with his message , but that doesnt mean hes abusing it to CAMPAIGN with......

Whether he is breaking the law? I dunno, is exploiting a loophole against the law?

how is he extorting money?

Just because you dont like what hes doing doesnt mean you can just throw out accusations without any proof.....well i suppose you can, but it seems a bit futile.......

As far as the rest of it, I would be considered conservative, and probably on the right leaning side of things.....however I am pro choice.......

Throwing out generalizations and making nasty comments doesnt lend credence to "your side" of the argument

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


The money is taken under the pretense that he intends to use it to win correct? He's not trying to win, he's trying to alienate everyone because he's a loser. I can see how as a right winger that you might ignore the fact that an unemployed person is trying to extort money and use a loophole to offend the voters. Anti-abortion voters will be offended by this.

I agree that this thread was not originally intended as an abortion debate, and I don't really want another one.

But I am really surprised at the responses early in the thread. They were calls to censor him, don't let those messages get forced on me, he can feel that way if he wants, but...

Is this the ATS that has defended OWS's right to free speech? Even the anti-OWSers say the demonstraters can make their protests. Not only has the Supreme Court said that political speech is entitled to the highest protection possible, but the FCC has ordered for years that you can't censor campaign speech.

Does he need a good chance to win to get First Amendment protection? If so, better take that protection from OWS, or Jon Huntsman. Is it possible that he feels that a dramatic commercial is needed to "Wake up the sheeple?"

I don't know how distasteful the ad will be, maybe more so than some animal rights ads or "food factory" exposes, but I would ask you to reconsider your thinking.

Originally posted by Evolutionsend
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

 

The money is taken under the pretense that he intends to use it to win correct? He's not trying to win, he's trying to alienate everyone because he's a loser. I can see how as a right winger that you might ignore the fact that an unemployed person is trying to extort money and use a loophole to offend the voters. Anti-abortion voters will be offended by this.

The money is taken under the pretense that he has the "opportunity" to run and win....

Its up to him to use it to run how he wishes, hes running a pro life add.......if thats his campaign platform thats his own decision........

Again, just because you do not agree with it means nothing, you wouldnt vote for him, thats your choice, however his supporters probably do agree with it........

Attacking me because you do not agree with the man , isnt helping your case.......and the name calling just lends credence to the fact that other than the issue you have with the mans ideals, you have no argument....

You might want to keep in check with your rhetoric.........ATS has been cracking down on rude behavior lately......

Id rather debate with someone who has the ability to do so without trying to insult me because I believe the man has a right to use campaign money as he wishes to CAMPAIGN with........

Again........I dont agree with his message (if you were reading what i was wrote, instead of trying to insult me you would have read this), but he can chose to use it as he wishes in that fashion......

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


We'll just have to agree to disagree then. I think he's a dishonest bum, and bold enough to admit it.

What's rude about getting the thread back on topic? Do we really need to take the thread to the abortion debate?

reply to post by charles1952

Is this the ATS that has defended OWS's right to free speech? Even the anti-OWSers say the demonstraters can make their protests. Not only has the Supreme Court said that political speech is entitled to the highest protection possible, but the FCC has ordered for years that you can't censor campaign speech.

Exactly right, but people only want freedom of speech when it applies to what they agree with........

as evident above with the personal attacks I endured for saying that the man has the right to campaign how he wishes, whether we like it or not

Originally posted by Evolutionsend
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree then. I think he's a dishonest bum, and bold enough to admit it.

Fair enough , I can agree to disagree, however I do have a question.........

What makes you think hes dishonest? What about it makes him dishonest?

Lets set aside what we think of the abortion debate , and focus on the person and what your argument is on this person being anything youve said he is?

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


If someone finances your campaign, you have an obligation to them to deliver your message in a way that will maximize your chances of holding office and pushing the political beliefs of yourself, and your financiers. No one gives campaign money to someone because they hope the person loses. They want a person that thinks like they do, to win, and represent them. He's not going to win, and he knows that. They probably know that too, which is why his campaign probably won't get to run a single ad.

Why support the guy that wants dead fetuses on TV, when someone else wants to end abortions and has a much smarter way of going about it?

The elections are a year away. Since we know about it, he's not keeping anything secret, it's more open and honest than anything going on in Washington.

If we don't think he's running a campaign that will win, why are we allowing him to take any money for any kind of ad? He has the right to choose the campaign direction. After the election he still has to go back to his house and face his neighbors, and supporters.

I'm still concerned that "we" will decide what commercial a candidate is allowed run when he's already announced what he will do with the money he raises, and his supporters know what they're getting into.

(Wait a minute, another quick thought. Do people believe that the FCC's clear order that a campaign ad may not be censored is a "loophole?" That he's "exploiting?" That's some neat definition stretching.)

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I wonder if the over-generalizations of 'they' isn't part of the problem here, everyone? I've met democrats who are very pro-death penalty and I've met pro-choice conservatives. Outside of Washington and the Media shows, real life citizens really don't fall into most of those cookie cutter definitions, IMHO.

Throwing them around can sure turn a thread into a partisan mess tho, eh?

Thank you! A star for you sir.

OT: Alrighty here. I'm pro-life(To some extents pro-choice) or whatever(not religious btw) Also anti-death plenty. Not really for murder. Anyways regarding this ad. I think it is offensive, but don't personally care if he shows it or not. I'm also pro-freedom of speech. So if I ever run across the ad I'll choose not to watch, as not to be offended. There problem solved.

reply to post by mikemck1976


Yes "right wingers" (not human beings) are "exploiting" (not concerned) to air "ani-choice" (legalized murder) propaganda.

Funny thing about abortion. The woman has the choice to murder her child. The man has no choice if he has to raise that child for 18 years. Instead, his only choice is to sit in a cage. Nice logic.

This thread is not an anti/pro-choice debate. I didn't write this story nor did I write the headline. I bet most of the posters here didn't even click the link to read the whole story because 3/4 of the responses are way off topic.
I would like to say “Thank You” to the ones did stay on topic.

But….

Most of you are like "This guy wants to kill babies! Let’s give him hell!!!"

That is not my viewpoint.

I am able to separate my feelings from my beliefs.

Feelings and beliefs are not the same thing.

Like I said, I do “believe” in a woman’s right to choose.

But do I “feel” it is the right choice?

That, in its self is a whole other topic and has nothing to this thread.

I just posted the story as is. I don't have an agenda by posting this thread by any means. I just wanted to bring an interesting story to ATS. I expected more from the members of ATS…But you guys seem to prove me wrong about that over and over again.

Seems like most of you truly don’t understand what ATS is about anymore or you just want to see just how far you can step over the line that is ATS’s T&C’s before the Mods or Staff say anything.
But I do have one thing to say to these members….

This behavior stops here and now.

I’m fed up with feeling like getting attacked or made to eat crow. Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with someone having an opposing viewpoint, that’s fine with me, in fact it is very welcomed.

But I will not stand for the rude and snarkie remarks, or the lack of respect for a fellow ATS Member anymore.

Thank You