Shock treatment

I suspect this move will make him more enemies than friends, since so many people watch the Super Bowl with their kids. Via Raw Story:

People in 40 cities across the country may be subjected to a graphic anti-abortion ad while watching the Super Bowl in February.

The ads are the brainchild of anti-abortion crusader Randall Terry, who founded Operation Rescue. The ads claim abortion is mass murder and show what is purported to be images of aborted fetuses.

He mounted a Democratic primary challenge against President Barack Obama to take advantage of a Federal Communication Commission (FCC) loophole that prevents campaign ads from being censored.

FCC-licensed TV stations can reject ads based on graphic content, but they are required by law to run the ads of federal candidates within the 45-day window of any primary election or caucus in a given state.

But the ads will only run in local markets. NBC is not required by law to air the ads.

Terry plans to air the ads in the 40 cities where he will be on the ballot against Obama in Democratic primaries or caucuses. He has already purchased air time for at least one ad.

4 thoughts on “Shock treatment

  1. The problem that Mr.Terry has is that he’s a hypocrite. As are the majority of those who support an anti-abortion position. They oppose “taking the life of the unborn,” yet they see no problem with killing people using capital punishment and war. That thought process seems inconsistent. To be fair the Left is also hypocritical on the issue of abortion. The Left supports abortion, but is anti-capital punishment and anti-war. Explaining away that inconsistency by claiming that people should have a “choice” rings very hollow. Except to the most rabid and hard core libertarians whose only constancy is their inconsistency on every issue.

  2. I think the arguement ought not be focused on “unborn” vs.”born” and carried to the “after birth” conclusions that the idealogues on both the Left and the Right like to do; if kept seperate the complications relating to both positions are more easily digested.

    For example, if if the Roe v. Wade position doesn’t include the questions regarding rape or incest, then it’s a fairly simple concept to digest: a woman has a natural right to decide what happens to her body under any and all circumstances. That notion, I think, is the crux of the arguement—shoudn’t we all have that right?

  3. dandy, those are known as “reproductive rights,” no? The problem is that except in cases of a virgin birth, like that of the Virgin Mary, or insemination there is normally a man present duing the act. What are his rights?

  4. Rather negligible, compared to the woman who has to carry a child for nine months and go through labor and delivery – not to mention the economic implications for the rest of her life. Man can and frequently do walk away.

Comments are closed.