During the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show Janet Jackson had a wardrobe malfunction that shocked a nation. Now a 2012 commercial approved for air in 40 U.S. cities is going to make Jackson's nip slip seem like nothing.
Graphic and Bloody During Family Time
Nothing is going to drop jaws more or cause parents to cover their children's eyes more than graphic, bloody pictures of aborted fetuses in an anti-abortion advertisement paid for by Democrat Presidential hopeful Randall Terry.
What a great way to get publicity; traumatize children with images that they normally would not see at 7 pm on a Sunday night. It is a good thing there is advance notice of these ads, so schools can be ready on Monday to explain to children, some who are too young to understand abortion and explain it in a way that does not demoralize a woman who has had to make the decision to have an abortion to save her life, or was raped or molested.
Who?
That is what many Americans will say when they see the very graphic and purposely disturbing images being displayed by Democratic Presidential hopeful, Randall Terry.
Terry, a former Republican is an anti-abortionist that has been arrested 50 times for his cause. He is using an election law that forbids the FCC from prohibiting his ad within 45-days of an election and the primary counts as that.
The ads will all be run locally. Only parents in primary states have to worry about how to censor or explain to their children what they are seeing in the ads.
© Christine M. Dantz 2012
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 16
And Randall Terry running as a Democrat!? Ha. He doesn't have a chance against Vermin Supreme, with his platform of zombie apocalypse awareness, time travel research, and the promise of a pony for every American.
That Randall Terry?
Just another evil bigot who loves to use law when he cans, and tries to stop others if he doesn't like the law....what a turd. And far from being a member in the Democratic Party.
However ... for the adults among us ... much of the time, especially for those who wait longer than 11 or so weeks to have it done, this is what is aborted; not a blob of flesh by any stretch of the imagination.
In fact, the one looks like it was at least a 3rd or 4th month abortion ... Here is one I like better ... one of similar age but still alive and healthy inside 'Mom'.
What is you suggested solution?
Tongue in cheek I'd say that if ya ever run across someone who has a law that will keep this kind of stuff off the airwaves altogether, let me know 'cause I think I have several others that will also fit the category.
For instance...
The sex gel ads (the ooey-gooey and overly-glowing descriptions of a gel or spray or pill that enhances something that is and should-be-kept-precious-and-private ads ... ).
Male 'member' enhancement ads (the after-four-hours-you-might-consider-going-to-the-emergency-room ads, some using perfectly good tunes as background fill which may be ruined forever as a result)
Too-detailed feminine products ads (we all got along just fine without having to see it detailed on tv in front of every tom dick harry and man in the street).
Any advertisement for abortion.
Gory and otherwise inappropriately sexualized and/or violent movie trailer ads screened for the general public (instead of just targeted to adults or toned-down for actual general viewing) ... seems like they could give the nonpaying crowd a watered down version and keep the "best" for those who pay to see the whole thing ...
These are a few of my personal ick factor ads (aside from but still including the subject ad of the article). For which I'm sure there is a time and place during which each is not only appropriate but possibly even helpful -- but Daytime or Primetime TV or during Super Bowl is not one of those times or places (imo)...
Further, if we insist that "wardrobe malfunctions", curse words, shows like '2 and a half men', and "anti bullying" conferences that include anyone under 18 without parental consent are no big deal, then we must also consider that many other things may also fall under that same category of "no big deal" (if not now, then eventually).
What I mean is, in the same way the shock of an exposed breast or the use of expletives, and the shock of state sponsored exposure of school children to straight or gay sex stuff is being eroded in our culture, the shock of such images as is under discussion here will also wear off as it eventual joins it's counterparts as 'no big deal' to the sensibilities of the general population.