Not endearing me to the cause
Outside the office just now is a plane flying overhead with a banner behind it. The banner has a picture of an aborted baby and the caption Abortion is Terror. Not a real tasteful way to get converts, there guys.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
October 12th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
Yeah, like standing outside a clinic with graphic pictures yelling “Mommy, mommy, please don’t hurt me” is tasteful? They don’t really care much about what’s “tasteful.”
October 12th, 2006 at 8:16 pm
Here in D.C. we see that stuff all the time. Once while driving to work I got stuck in rush hour traffic behind a van covered with giant pictures of aborted fetuses.
Regardless of what side of the debate you’re on, there’s no need to be cruising around in rush hour traffic.
October 12th, 2006 at 9:13 pm
I don’t find going to a doctor to have an in vitro fetus suctioned out of its mother’s womb to be especially tasteful.
How would you guys put a tasteful spin on trying to dissuade someone from engaging in that procedure?
I don’t mean the above question to be sarcastic, but I find the notion of “taste” to be generally missing in the abortion context.
October 12th, 2006 at 9:22 pm
ditto to the above comment. I have a friend that was adopted. he’s lucky he wasn’t aborted. but if he had been we would tastefully put it out of our mind.
October 12th, 2006 at 10:37 pm
So because you feel abortion is disgusting means you can gross everyone else out? Hate to break the news to you but not everyone feels that way and people don’t tend to follow the advice of groups that like to disgust them.
October 13th, 2006 at 7:09 am
I think it’s more about expressing anger and disgust than gaining “converts”.
I’ve about resigned myself to accepting that abortion is here to stay. Basically, ponder a bit the backlash if abortion was made illegal because it’s actually killing a human life without justification (murder). That would mean that not only would future abortions be illegal, but, even though they were legal, past abortions WERE murder in the eyes of society NOW. Think about all the “normal women” who would, in effect, become murderers.
The guilt would be almost unbearable.
October 13th, 2006 at 8:15 am
I saw that up in the sky too.
Served no purpose, no reason, no argument and no sentiment. As far as terrorism goes – that would be the criminals who blow up medical facilities and put out death threats against doctors.
And if they think abortion is terror, do they think homsecuals are Freedom Fighters?
October 13th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
“people don’t tend to follow the advice of groups that like to disgust them.” — Then why does NOW hold public rallies and marches?
October 13th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
News Flash: An appendectomy is pretty damn gross, too, but you don’t see people driving around with graphic pictures pretending that’s a rational argument to talk you out of it.
But the funny thing is, that isn’t my biggest problem with the anti-abortion crowd. My biggest problem, as I’ve explained many, many times, is that for all their wailing and gnashing of teeth about abortion, they really seem to care only about the legality of abortion, and not about the actual incidence of abortion. If they cared about the latter, they would support measures that are proven to reduce unintended pregnancies, including comprehensive sex education and active promotion of contraceptive use. That they oppose these things tells me that they view the sex to be an even bigger sin than the abortion.
October 13th, 2006 at 3:19 pm
chris:
What sorts of graphic pictures does NOW display at their rallies? I mean, NOW has some views not everyone is going to agree with, but if you consider equality for women to be a “disgusting” concept, perhaps you’d be a bit happier living in Afghanistan…
October 13th, 2006 at 6:11 pm
Amigos-
I will debate this matter with you civilly or, it that’s not possible, I will bail and let you guys talk about me. No problem.
As for the dead baby ads, I agree that they are distasteful. I am not a PR person, so I can’t quantify the extent to which that they help or hurt the pro-life movement.
But I don’t think that one side should really consider how the other side wants it to advertise.
I suspect that the Brady crowd would rather see us wear ribbons than sport our pro-2A bumper stickers (“from my cold dead hands”), but I don’t really care about how they think I should express an opinion that is contrary to theirs.
I also don’t care for the “Keep your laws off my body” bumper stickers that I see, but I doubt that the pro-abortion crowd really wants my opinion as to how it should get the word out.
Taste is a subjective matter, and it’s also a double edge sword.
I remember that the NRA was accused of poor form and bad taste when it held its convention in Denver a week or 2 after the Columbine school massacre.
Was it really bad taste? I guess it depends on whom you ask.
A current case in point is the posters that the anti-war crowd carry at their rallies which show the carnage of the Iraq war.
I am not partial to the Bush = Hitler crowd, but I don’t complain about their posters, because they accurately reflect the results of the war.
But I don’t think that the tastefulness, or lack thereof, is what everyone is all stressed out about.
What has everyone disturbed is that they are accurate, not that they are ugly.
I also anticipate that there is not any kind of ad, tasteful or otherwise, that could sway any of us from our positions on this divisive issue.
So, when I see a group complain about the tastefulness of its adversary’s communications, but not their accuracy, it speaks volumes.
I find the Christian fish symbol with “Darwin” in it to utterly tasteless, but I support the right of that person to make fun of my religious symbol.
As a result, I don’t get hung up about the “tastefulness” of someone’s bumper stickers, posters, t-shirts, etc.
No, I think as someone who champions himself as an advocate of the 1A (and the 2A), I need to tolerate tasteless speech, irrespective of whether I agree with the content.
Interestingly, most 1A law isn’t made by “nice people”. To the contrary, it’s made by someone like Larry Flint, whom I find to be way beyond tasteless, but I’m sure glad that people like him push the limits of free speech, because I don’t ever want it regulated (think: hate speech).
Similarly, most 4A law isn’t made by “nice people”. No, it’s made by someone who is a criminal, but has been the victim of police abuse.
Lastly, I certainly support equality for women and everyone else. I just don’t see the NOW as a vehicle for achieving it. I see it as a one trick pony, which is to defend legalized abortion.
Have a good weekend.
October 13th, 2006 at 6:30 pm
Fuck tasteful. Sometimes it takes graphic truth to make an impression.
How would it be possible to tastefully present evidence of the Holocaust?
Pretty lame when those who want to kill unborn babies can only complain about the tasteless representation of their own actions. If the representation is distasteful, what is the act of actually doing it?
October 16th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
straightarrow:
So then, by your reasoning, the proper way to protest the Iraq war is to show graphic pictures of the casualties?
October 17th, 2006 at 8:53 am
[…] I saw the ads flying around town last week and wrote about it here. Joe says: Callers to Dave Foulk’s show constantly framed their anti-abortion arguments with false language and false arguments, and an eagerness to control human sexuality. When someone calls abortion “killing children” they present a false claim. Children are not aborted. It also isn’t “infanticide”, as both child and infant are lifeforms outside the womb. […]