CFNY the Edge Airs Anti-Abortion Ads
So, last night, I was listening to CFNY FM 102.1 The Edge - a Toronto radio station- and in the middle of all the so-called "cool alternative kids music" I hear a 15 second anti-abortion ad spot from a group called Niagara Region Right To Life*. It went something like this:
To anyone out there in an advertising or marketing position with a company that advertises on the Edge: You should reconsider giving them your business. The Edge is not what you think it is. They are allowing people to broadcast messages that blatantly disrespect a woman's right to have control over her own body. Plain and simple. A woman's right to choose is inalienable- it's her body, not that of some right wing, religious zealot Niagara nutcase.
Boycott the Edge! Others have been successful at having the same ads pulled in Hamilton- check THIS out. Contact the Edge via their contacts page HERE and complain!
*Checked them out. They do not have a web site, but THESE nutters seem to be behind the campaign to get the ads back on the air in Hamilton. Stop them by contacting Y108 HERE and letting them know what you think!
When they say that abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor, aren’t they forgetting someone? I did….abortion harms more than just the baby.The Edge has always billed themselves as being the voice of cool- the hip, new, left-of-centre rad Indie supporting station with integrity. What this confirms to me is The Edge is nothing more than a blunt fuckin' grapefruit spoon.
To anyone out there in an advertising or marketing position with a company that advertises on the Edge: You should reconsider giving them your business. The Edge is not what you think it is. They are allowing people to broadcast messages that blatantly disrespect a woman's right to have control over her own body. Plain and simple. A woman's right to choose is inalienable- it's her body, not that of some right wing, religious zealot Niagara nutcase.
Boycott the Edge! Others have been successful at having the same ads pulled in Hamilton- check THIS out. Contact the Edge via their contacts page HERE and complain!
*Checked them out. They do not have a web site, but THESE nutters seem to be behind the campaign to get the ads back on the air in Hamilton. Stop them by contacting Y108 HERE and letting them know what you think!
Update: Both Y108 and the Edge are owned by Corus Entertainment. I'm sure they'd love to hear from you as well! Contact them HERE.
Labels: Media, Reactionary Bullshit
posted by K-Dough at 7:45 PM
79 Comments:
Excellent post K-Dough. These ads drive me crazy. A few months ago CTV aired a few and frankly I thought I was living in the States.
The Edge will be hearing from me.
Thanx V. Takes a lot to get you to comment if you are, indeed, the V I'm thinking of...ha!
Yes it's me! Gotta go the boss is trying to serve me tea. She's very demanding you know.
Somebody at The Edge made a bad call signing that contract. Money rules. I'll make sure those fuckers never play any of my recordings on their station....there, done!
(Apologies for appearing to make light of something that really shocks me...)
Well, I haven't heard the ads because I stopped listening to that station. It has been anything but edgey for a loooong time. They are a bunch of pandering whores who wouldn't know a new music gem if the devil himself walked through the station doors, pulled it out of his ass and fed it to the program director one note at a time.
They are a big lie. Remeber Payola? Yup, still exists. They are no different than much Music, except the fact that Much Music at least has the balls to make it clear who they are and who they sell to.
With a demographic ranging from 13-25 (I'm guessing) the edge should know better than to insist that some young teenager should not abort an unwanted child even though she is in school, even though she is not ready, even though the system can't handle another teenager on welfare.
Kids are impressionable they listen to their tvs and radios.
They should be aducated not punished.
With that said the edge is owned by Chorus entertainment, who owns Q107 and Mojo.
K-Djembe
K-Djembe - I don't know if you meant to type "aducated" but either way it's brilliant!!!!
K-Djembe,
I have a suspicious feeling that if you were to painstakingly trace business records and research all corporate pseudonyms, you'll find that pretty much everything is owned by Rogers.
Didn't mean to, unless on some unconscious level, but I'll take it.
Must be my advertising background. Alright I'm running out to copyright it.
Aducated ©2007 All rights reserved
K-Djembe
Hmmmm. This is getting curioser.
Corus Entertainment also owns CJXYFM Y108- the first station to pull the ads due to complaints.
very interesting indeed... tell me more.
K.
The Edge will be hearing from me.
I'll be congratulating them on allowing the truth to be heard.
Some day abortion will be made a criminal offense again. People are waking up to the reality of abortion, whether you like it or not.
The Edge has no edge. They lost it when they stopped playing The Spoons!
CFNY is largely a waste of bandwidth these days. I still listen to Alan Cross' Ongoing History shows, but otherwise it's complete garbage. How much corporate rock sludge do they think they can put on? Default? What a load of crap. They only time they play Canadian indie is when it explodes as in The Arcade Fire. Royal City, Most Serene Republic, The Constantines, Stars, Cuff the Duke - these groups either get minimal play or no play at all.
Once again all you left wing nutbars have proven you are the pinnacle of hypocrisy. You scream for freedom of speech and expression. However, you only what to see it in action when it supports your twisted liberal views of society. Conservatives have the right to views that are different from yours. In short, WAKE UP!!! Thankfully, not everyone supports the murder of babies!!! A women has a choice regarding having a baby. If she doesn't want one, all she needs to do is keep her pants on. Abstain from having unprotected sex!! It's that simple!! Abortion is for incest and rape victims only. It's not a form of birth control.
Life isn't the Discovery Channel, it's human beings making choices they are accountable for!!!
I'm contacting CFNY to thank them for running such a progressive, forward thinking ad. Imagine that? Morals in Canada in 2007. It's a great thing!!!
Some great points by forever blue. CFNY did the right thing.
You poor-choicers are anti-freedom of speech.
Anonymous and True Blue,
The Edge doesn't give a fuck about you, me or your "truth". I thought that was the point here, but, being a left wing nut-bar..what do I know. They should know better than to implicitly support one side of an emotionally divisive issue for the sake of making a few bucks for air time. Go ahead and congratulate them....they probably won't even know what you're talking about.
I agree, leather. I don't think the issue was abortion, but the airing of the ads.
Pam- you have it right. Regardless of your stance on this issue, what pisses me off is CFNY sucking the cash in on a moral issue with no sense of social responsibility. In this case -in my opinion - they should pay attention to the music and refrain from the cheap, whorish practice of making money off tendentious divisive moralistic issues like abortion.
Re: Freedom of speech. Everyone is entitled. I respect Forever Blue's opinion and he respects mine. I will alwaysrespect his opinion and his right to chose what's right for him.
We all have a right to voice our opinions. Corporations wil pay attention to whomever they think will cost them the most cash. Let's see who wins.
Already, the majority of Canadians support a woman's right to choose. I suspect our answer lies in that fact.
Forever Blue & Anonymous
Pro-life or pro-choice isn't something you advertise on radio. These are issues that are NOT profit gaining.
Each as a right to choose that is the point. I haven't heard any pro-choice ads.
What happened to distributing pamphets in sex-ed class or offering material in counciling offices. This issue pertains to the individual and it is her choice to make, and is not made by guilting her by cramming shame on you ads down her throat while listening to music.
Forever Blue - So you're ok with abortion as long as it conforms with your conservative blueprint, correct.
Condoms break, and birth control sometimes fails.
K-Djembe
K-Djembe- you said Condoms break, and birth control sometimes fails.
Not to mention sexual assault, date rape and drunk teenage conception all happen.
Who said anything about anyone's "truth". I have a feeling that you are somehow making this a religious issue?
The leftists have long been seen as the "champions of human rights", meanwhile, when it comes to an unborn human being, the feminist movement refuses to discuss it.
These feminist groups are totally hypocritical in their fight for rights, they won't allow any discussion whatsoever, and in the process, they have fought way further than they should have. You can only fight for rights for so long before you fight for rights begins to interfere with another's basic rights, in this case, the very fundamental right to life.
Still, if the Edge didn't air the ad, which they have the right to do, they would be setting the impression that they have something that they're afraid to air. What do you have to fear? What's wrong with the actual ad? Is there something that you don't want people to know? These are the reasons that people censor other's freedom of speech, when they don't want some particular facts to get out.
Well, if it was a children's time, then you really can't blame the pro-life group, you'd have to blame The Edge, maybe they decided not to air it at the ideal target audience in which it would have had the most effect. Which in that case, they just took Niagra Right to Life's money and spoiled it on the wrong target audience, which I'm quite sure you would be rather pleased of, given you impression of the ad.
The "abortion is not a form of birth control" argument never fails to give me a headache. The women I know who have had abortions were devastated to make that choice and made that choice for the right reasons. I don't know a woman who would consider abortion a form of birth control. I find that insulting.
Vek- You've made some very thoughful and balanced comments.
This blog is a mouth piece for my personal views. I do support the right to choose, so I say so.
With respect to pro-lifers' right to express their view point I say go ahead, it's a free society. That won't preclude the fact that capitalism has inherent underlying ways of silencing voices that offend the general consensus.
I'm not saying that consensus is always right. But let's just see how this issue withstands that kind of scrutiny.
"Once again all you left wing nutbars....."
".... your twisted liberal views of society."
I dunno K-Dough, I don't see a lot of respect for opinions there.
Leather- I know him personally- life long, great friend.
I take it with a grain of salt.
K-Dough, I never mentioned rape, or date rape because Forever Blue stated that it was the exception to his/her rules of abortion. I was trying to state that there are other factors involved with accidental pregnancy.
I feel that based on Forever Blues logic that it is ok for a poor man to walk into a bank and commit a robbery. Specific Circumstances makes any action ok. So, if you were raped then it's ok to have an abortion, but not if a condom breaks.
Pam - well said. It is not an easy decision to make.
As a sidebar I remember years ago while riding the bus overhearing a teenage girl tell her friend that she was intentionally trying to get pregnant so that she could collect welfare.
K-Djembe
K-Djembe: What you were you doing riding public transit in Oshawa?
Vek,
The "truth" retort was a reference to the first anonymous comment on this thread:
"The Edge will be hearing from me.
I'll be congratulating them on allowing the truth to be heard."
I thought that was unnecessarily loaded.
K-Dough, I figured as much. I've never seen so much restraint from you. You softy.
K-Dough, I was trying to go to the Zoo, I heard they were performing a public abortion on an Elephant - something about population control, and I transferred to the wrong bus and ended up in Oshawa, so I thought I'd take in the local culture.
K-Djembe
leatherhands:
You're right, I would say that a basic statement that the "truth" is impaired doesn't stand up well without backing it up with facts, arguments, and sources.
Pam, my views on abortion have always been nuanced, and uncertain.
As I get older, it seems to come down to this: since I have no idea what it is to be a woman, carry a child, be forced by whatever circumstance to make these decisions on what is going on in my body, and as a corollary I am not equipped with the capacity to even fathom the emotional impacts any of these things would have on a woman, I shut the fuck up. I'm not qualified.
OOOOHHH, i risk wraith.
Wait...isn't free speech and the pursuit of democratic principles more important than whether or not "my" radio station plays ONLY things "I" want to hear. Don't get me wrong: I AM NOT ant-abortionist. Nor do I advocate the scare-tactics used by people (on either side of the fence) but I also do not believe censoring beliefs, thoughts and positions gets us any closer to resolution. I, for one, will risk YOUR wraith and not boycott.
as for whether or not the station is edgey -- my vote: NO FLIPPIN' WAY.
but airing this commercial DOES make it edgey.
we love to cocoon ourselves in our bubbles of same-thought/same-beliefs/same-values. why do you think the nation IS so divided???? Not because of these commercials, but because dialogue (if there is any) turns into label-creating and hate-mongering.
ooooh...i know i really am risking the wraith. ok, my breathe is held...go for it.
Wait wait wait wait...
didn't I read:
"A woman's right to choose is inalienable- it's her body, not that of some right wing, religious zealot Niagara nutcase."
So what's the problem with advocating a certain CHOICE? Her right to choose hasn't been challenged at all..
(I'm pro-choice BTW, so ad hominems aside please - but I'm also pro-free speech)
Romana- I think free speech is important. I also think that the ontological social democracy lurking beneath our society is important. By nature, they are odds with each other philosophically because the louder one side is, the quieter the other becomes.
In this case, I am simply supporting the louder side.
BTW- I would never hold it against for making a logical, compelling point.
I my disagree, but so what. Who am I?
Jordan- philosophcally and linguistically I agree with you wholeheartedly.
However, we all know there is certain political constituency behind these kinds of campaigns, that does not believe in that right of choice at all.
In fact, the heart of their argument is that there should be legislation that takes away that choice from women.
CFNY lost it years ago when they dropped the never play the same song twice in a 12 hour window, policy.
Since then they have been the same programmed crap as everyone else.
The era when I could wake up to The CRAMPS one day and Kate Bush the next are long gone. I suspect that they don't even have total control over their own comercials that Corus signs deals for all their holdings.
They don't even have quality jocks, that Josie Dye they had/has? slured her words every time she opend that lopsided head of hers.
(One eye is noticably lower than the other.)
I do however agree with Romana, both the right to disent and the right to voice disent is equal to the right to choose. If this group choose to throw money at a market that will for the most part ignore their message so be it. How is that different than me wasting my time railing against pollution, stupidity and Fiat currency and for the most part being ignored by most and ridiculed by others.
It's there right, their cash, their problem, not mine.
GAB: you said The era when I could wake up to The CRAMPS one day and Kate Bush the next are long gone.
Alternative/community/internet radio baby. That's where it's at.
So what if there is a motive behind it? There are political motives behind all advocacy. I highly doubt you would be so critical of an ad advertising Canada's monopoly on the wheat board, Health Care, restrictive policies of the CRTC, the list goes on and on. All of the afformentioned restrict choice to one or only a few options - so why be so hypocritical.
Can I ask - have you known a woman who's had an abortion? I have... and they're not the same after, that much is certain. I think the ad has some merit (Even if I don't agree with the underlying message).
You can't claim to be progressively pro-choice if you're not willing to allow a choice. Stifling one side makes you anything but progressive.
The group has the right to buy the ad, the Edge has the right to play the ad and K-Dough has the right to organize a boycott over the playing of the ad. I see nothing but free speech here.
This is getting good. Real debate, without shit-flinging. Question Period, take note...
Jordan- I guess my point is that it does no good to remain hopelessly objective when it comes to political issues.
You have to pick a lane.
If you were voting in the house on a Private Members Bill that would make all abortion illegal, what would your vote be?
I realize we are not voting on a bill. We are merely registering opinions on a blog.
To me, the issue itself is about human rights. I am attacking an idea that I think violates human rights. It's not about an option within a range of choices.
And to answer your question- I have known several women as a social worker and personally who have had abortions. You say they are never the same. I say some of those children would have been doomed to terrible fates had they been born.
Eugene- You just gave the most comprehensive and least convoluted summation of this entire issue.
You win the Anti-Shit Flinging Award!
Good to hear that someone broadcasted pro-life stuff on the radio. When some english major tries to talk to me (a biology major) about when an unborn child is and isn't alive, I can only shake my head and laugh in disbelief.
I'd like to thank my agent.....
"I may not like what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." It can be argued that this quote is a foundation for western democracy as we know it. In Canada certain rights are guaranteed to us by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They include the right to freedom of speech, the right to life and the right to freedom of religion or consience. They do not include a right to never ever be exposed to anything that you feel is wrong/insulting. I despise the idea of censorship because if we allow it to become taboo to discuss certain issues in a public forum, how long will it be before we begin to lose hard won rights altogether for good.
impressive, CFNY has got balls.
"Can I ask - have you known a woman who's had an abortion? I have... and they're not the same after, that much is certain."
After an abortion, after an unplanned pregnancy, after a planned pregnancy, after giving birth, after a miscarriage...Most of us are not the same after finding out we're pregnant, regardless of our decision to carry the pregnancy to term.
Victoria- from a corporate perspective, this is not erally about censorship or promoting free speech, it's about PR. It's about the same decisions media outlets make every day based on what they will run and what they won't, which is, in turn, based on advertising dollars.
As consumers, the public is entitled to respond to messages being broadcast. That's what I am advocating. If you think free speech is the most salient issue I'm puzzled.
No one's free speech is being compromised by me advocating that the ad preaches a negative message about women's rights.
And for the record, I think this was a stupid corporate decision, regardless of my stance on the actual issue.
KD, re: this was a stupid corporate decision
We are talking about The (blunt) Edge, afterall.
I guess over there they don't make shit decisions on just the music.
In this, they've validated for me my previous decision to not listen to 102.1FM.
Thus, thankfully, I was spared that particular audio assault.
forever blue; are you serious? You said;"I'm contacting CFNY to thank them for running such a progressive, forward thinking ad. Imagine that? Morals in Canada in 2007. It's a great thing!!!"
Forward thinking ad? Quite the opposite, I think the obviously more-than-painful decision one would have to make in order to actually have an abortion would by it's very nature be the epitome of forward thinking, not the other way around as you have so sloppily (as usual)averred.
Man, Dante shows up at your blog, and he doesn't write in terza rima? And he's an undergraduate bio major with conservative political views?
Alighieri, you never fail to surprise. I'd eat you if you weren't already dead.
Globor- you little green dynamo! Long time no see dude....
With all due respect K-Dough, I don't think that is what your post implies at all. The fact is, you heard something on the radio that you had a moral objection to. Now you are using a forum to call for that add to be removed. Why? Do you believe that the general public are all so intellectually inept as to base their entire opinion of a profoundly important issue on a 15 second radio add? Another issue raised that confuses me, is the argument that the adds are somehow worse because the radio station made of profit off of them. Would you have the same objection to the adds if the slot had been donated? In a capitalist system, products are produced and then sold to the customer for the highest possible price. Profits are then used to pay employees, re-invest whatever. This system, sustains every single Canadian citizen's lifestyle. For a radio station, their product is advertising time. The fact that the radio station sold this time to the highest bidder doesn't necessarily reflect their own opinion of the issue. It just says that they are playing by the same rules as every other Canadian media outlet who regularly broadcasts adds of a political/ethical nature (at least every time there is an election). I have to wonder if many of the commenters here would be suffering from the same kind of hysterical outrage if the ad had a pro-choice bias. I think that no matter how much you dress it up, the bottom line is that you don't want a (commonly held) opinion that does not reflect your own made available in a public forum, and that IS censorship.
Forever Blue- looks like Dog Gone It has thrown the dirty panties down.
You gonna pick em up?
Victoria- Respectfully, I am not advocating censorship. I don't have the power to censor those ads. Censorship can only be exercised by government, military or by some autocrat over a group, where there is no democratic right of membership.
If the ads were aired on Christian television I wouldn't give a shit less. I am not a consumer (in the television viewer sense) of that television station.
They are being aired on a station I occasionally listen to. I am a consumer (in the radio listener sense). I am expressing my preference. I haven't once claimed that this isn't about my personal opinion. I am not starting a political movement against pro-lifers or public stupidity for that matter.
I don't really understand what you are arguing against.
"I say some of those children would have been doomed to terrible fates had they been born.
"
I agree with that... completely. See, here's the problem - you're talking about human rights... but there are 3 rights in question:
the woman's - her right to choose(however, this should also take into consideration fathers' rights)
The baby's - At what point does the baby constitute a human being?(I'm of the opinion that late-term abortions are wrong, but early-term are acceptable)
and thirdly - the right to free speech.
The rights of the first two, to me have been upheld(excluding the father's rights, which have been brutally trampled over time and time again). The third is in serious question in this country. In Ottawa for example, the Carleton University Students Association cut funding off to religious groups who advocated the position of pro-life.
I certainly don't agree with a pro-life stance, nor do I agree that religion has anything to do with it. But I most certainly support any group's right to say anything that doesn't advocate violence or racism.
Like myself, you probably get extremely angry when you hear people calling those of us who are pro-choice "murderers", "baby-killers" or suggest we are participating in some "wholesale slaughter". Well, stop for a moment and think about what you are now doing - The exact same thing, but the opposite side. You wouldn't be happy if their side tried to stifle you, yet you do it to them... why?
I appreciate that your call to boycott is also a form of free speech. It is not that that concerns me - it is the fact that you, like so many others, are so unwilling to accept that people may have any opinon other than your own. Or, you demonize them. After all that, you turn around and claim to be "progressive". There is not a thing about refusing dissenting arguments that is "progressive".
Thanks for a great topic today K-dough. Hard to beat so many vastly different opinions being expressed. Additional thanks to
Anonymous, Leatherhands, Victoria, Pam, Dog Gone It and Jordan for jumping in with both feet. A great weekend to all.
And dare I say, "GO LEAFS"!!!
Jordan- Agreed on the father's rights issue.
I want to address this though:
It is not that that concerns me - it is the fact that you, like so many others, are so unwilling to accept that people may have any opinon other than your own. Or, you demonize them. After all that, you turn around and claim to be "progressive". There is not a thing about refusing dissenting arguments that is "progressive".
Firstly, I don't know where you got the idea that I claim to be progressive. I've been called a lot of things and have called myself a lot of things, but progressive is not one of them. You are typing words into my keyboard there dude.
Secondly, I have gone out of my way today to make sure everyone knew that this is only my opinion. I'm not claiming to speak for anyone- like they do. I would encourage you re-read the comments above. Esp., where I said this "I respect Forever Blue's opinion and he respects mine. I will always respect his opinion and his right to chose what's right for him.
Thirdly, I am not demonizing anyone. Admittedly, I did call the group in question right wing nutcases, so at worst I may be guilty of stereotyping and/or character assasination. That's hardly demonizing.
In fact, I admit we have something in common.
They think this issue is worth fighting for and so do I. They feel the need to make public pronouncements on the issue and so do I.
What the fuck is wrong with that?
K-Dough, I was about to write a response but Jordan beat me to it. To echo what he said: Censorship does not necessarily have to be in the domain of the government/military as we have witnessed at Carleton U and at UBC. My problem with your boycott and others of a similar nature is that they inevitably imply that they are silencing differing opinions in the name of advancing society/the common good in some way. In reality silencing oposition is neither democratic,nor moral, and in my opinion almost never serves the purpose of advancing the common good.
What the hell's with all this talk about abortion??? I thought we were talking about The Spoons.
Victoria- you said "My problem with your boycott and others of a similar nature is that they inevitably imply that they are silencing differing opinions in the name of advancing society/the common good in some way. In reality silencing oposition is neither democratic,nor moral, and in my opinion almost never serves the purpose of advancing the common good.
I have a question for you. How is my trying to silence debate any different philosophically than an MP voting against same sex marriage in the house?
Moreover, if my efforts are considered censorship, why aren't those voting for or against certain moralistic issues trying to shut up their oppsition?
Mmmmh... I'm not sure why I thought you used the word progressive... apologies.
"Plain and simple. A woman's right to choose is inalienable- it's her body, not that of some right wing, religious zealot Niagara nutcase."
yeah, that's demonizing...
Anyhow - I'm advocating keeping an open mind on this topic, understanding of course that this is a highly controversial topic with a lot of different sides.. and the importance of enabling free speech(because one day you'll be on their side of the fence, and it won't feel too good)
Victoria just hit the nail on the head.. Thanks for that!
Jordan- I'm for open minds as well. In fact, I'm so open minded that I trust women to make responsible decisions about their futures and bodies :)
But seriously, I would like to pose these same questions to you:
I have a question for you. How is my trying to silence debate any different philosophically than an MP voting against same sex marriage in the house?
Moreover, if my efforts are considered censorship, why aren't those voting for or against certain moralistic issues trying to shut up their oppsition?
Just because someone wants something, doesn't mean they get it. Voting determines who gets what... or doesn't.
Voting is a result of free-speech. We hire elected officials to make those decisions for us; decisions that are enabled by the ability to pose your thoughts and feelings on a topic.
So in other words, the two are in no-way similar. Although it may appear as they are, because both positions are basically saying NO, they are in fact different. attempting to stifle the one argument is saying that x should have no right to say that, so i'm going to boycott them. voting is saying that we hear your argument, but disagree. voting does not attempt to end further argument. stifling it does.
Not at all..
They were excersizing free speech by expressing their opinion.
exersizing, sorry
Jordan- I don't agree.
You said attempting to stifle the one argument is saying that x should have no right to say that, so i'm going to boycott them.
I have never once said they have no right to have an opinion. I'm not an MP, but I am voting to put pressure on CFNY to stop airing their message. Simple.
What I'm proposing is kinda like hanging around in front of an abortion clinic with a sign saying "Baby Murderer" while traumatized women you've never met have to hide their faces to walk past you.
But thtway I'm proposing to do it is less agressive, less mean-spirited and doesn't brutally target individuals.
"What I'm proposing is kinda like hanging around in front of an abortion clinic with a sign saying "Baby Murderer" while traumatized women you've never met have to hide their faces to walk past you."
For the record I don't agree with that either. There is a time and place to protest - that is not it.
I understand your point...
my point in all of this is that I think you're taking the wrong action:
first - you're attacking a relatively innocent private enterprise who's sole purpose is to make money(the entire point of our liberally democratic capitalism system)
second - you're basically trying to shut out the voices instead of arguing the alternate viewpoint.
You've closed the book on the discussion as opposed to fighting against it..
I see that all too often on the social-right. And being a staunch fiscal conservative, but only somewhat social conservative it always bothers me. I see these people accusing me, among others of murdering babies and the like...
it's not right when they do it, and I don't think it's right when "pro-choice" does it.
I think advocating the choice of having and adopting, or having and keeping the child is a very good thing to be suggesting. It should certainly be considered as an option for any mother-to-be.
Advocacy group aside - the ad itself doesn't seem to advocate outlawing abortion.... at least from your synopsis. So I'm left wondering why you would take such an issue with it.
Have a great weekend all....that was stimulating. (I fear the productivity of the Ontario work force suffered a bit today....)
Jordan- it was good debating with you today dude. You have a very good head on your shoulders- esp. considering your age!
If you are the future of the Conservative party they are lucky...damned better than the intellectual talent drafted for the current roster.
Excellent post, K. They have freedom of speech to spread their message but then others have the freedom of not listening the message. Abortion is a complex issue. Unless, you are the one who has to make the decision you won't know what it is like to make that decision. A woman can have the choice to give birth then give up the baby for adoption but that is not always possible. I am not sure that a rape victim would want to give birth to a child that was conceived in violence. I am not sure many teenagers are prepared to go through pregnancy specially if they don't have the support of their families. Sometimes it is just not possible to go through a pregnancy then give up the child for adoption that is why I support having a choice.
Thanks J...
I think we are all pro-life. You can be pro-choice and pro-life.Pro-choice does not mean anti-life. Why not just say anti-abortion?
Pam- Right on sista- call a spade a spade.
no opinion, just reading your comments.
You'll be pleased to know I have solved the Kyoto dilemma.
Oh... ditto KD on this Pam. You took the words right out of my mouth.
The radio station in question, or any other for that matter, has the right to air any legitimate ad they please.
Seems to me that if you disagree with a point of view, that point of view is somehow evil and unacceptable.
Typical of the "culture of tolerance" crowd. " I believe in diversity of opinion". Yes, unless it's not to your liking, and then the intolerance comes through,writ large.
Mature individuals respect and tolerate other points of view.
You may some day realize that, although I wouldn't be surprised if you don't.
Post a Comment
<< Home