Thursday, March 06, 2008

These ads really tick me off

Obviously, abortion is a huge political issue in the United States. My position, as much as I'm willing to discuss, is that the only possible solution that could make both sides happy is the complete elimination of unplanned pregnancy. If no one needs/wants an abortion, the problem goes away.

Unfortunately, most of the "pro-life" side considers sexuality a "sin" and therefore will not get behind real sex education and birth control. The current "abstinence only" sex education curriculum they're peddling is a testament to that. That this position is incredibly hypocritical of them is par for the course.

A group interested in the issue, The Second Look Project has been buying ad space in the DC Metro system. The ads try to portray their position as reasonable and moderate. Their tagline is "Have we gone too far?" But their disingenuous ad copy clearly demonstrates that they're not moderate.

Here's one of their ads.


Huh? "Everyone agrees Roe v. Wade is good Constitutional law?" WTF? Isn't that the whole issue we've been fighting about for the last thirty-five years? At least 40% of the country DOESN'T think Roe v. Wade is good Constitutional law. This bizarre statement is certainly a "myth", but not one that ANYONE believes.

And the "fact" is even more stupid. "Pro-choice legal scholars admit its reasoning is suspect"? That must be quite some quote-mine. I daresay that pro-choice legal scholars are perfectly happy with the reasoning as were successive Supreme Courts which have continued to uphold the right to abortion. Plus, the word "suspect" implies some nefarious purpose.

Then there's this ad.

What bothers me about this is "vast majority" and "for any reason". Isn't there a sizable minority of women who believe that abortion should always be illegal? Isn't there an even bigger group who believe that there should be some restrictions on abortion? Both of those show "vast majority" to be a huge misstatement. But of course, that's the "myth".

Both of these ads throw up huge Strawmen and then knock them over with dubious "facts". Sadly, this type of behavior isn't surprising when dealing with such a sensitive issue.

I just wish we could have a rational discussion without all the spin. These ads don't add to the discussion, they're misleading and stupid.



5 comments:

Anonymous said...

I agree with you about the general disingenuous of the article. But there is just enough truth in there to snag some people. The fact is that a lot of people, including some that support abortion rights, question the legal reasoning in Roe v. Wade. Justice O'Connor questioned it as a matter of fact. Some legal scholars also question the legal reasoning in Brown v. Board of Education. That doesn't mean, of course, that they support overturning the ruling.

The disingenous part of the ad, of course, is the implication that this is some sort of disinterested group that is trying to shed light on a complicated issue when, in fact, they are just trying to attack the pro-choice position. As you say, most Americans have a position somewhere between the two extremes--they favor abortion rights with some restrictions.

David Fair said...

These ads seem tailor made for the "[citation needed]" stickers that Eric talks about on his blog today...

Ipecac said...

Marc, if they had said "some pro-choice legal scholars" that would be fine. But it doesn't, which is misleading and wanky.

Dave, excellent idea!

Anonymous said...

That's a good point about saying all legal scholars which I didn't notice. I'm not sure it would be any less misleading if they used the word "some" because the ad completely misses the point. Whether or not the legal reasoning of Roe v.Wade is suspect has absolutely nothing with whether abortions should or should not be legal or whether the gist of the decision is correct. Even if the reasoning is wrong, it doesn't necessarily follow that the conclusion is wrong. And even if they are right that the decision has been extended too far, that has nothing to do with the original reasoning of the decision. Many perfectly sound decisions have been extended to an illogical extreme.

Ipecac said...

Good points, Marc.