Do you find these billboards offensive?

prinz

csi vegas wrote: »

It is a rare occurence that a woman who is in a secure, loving relationship will choose a termination..

I think you'll find most pro-choice people will argue the opposite.

LisaLee

prinz wrote: »

They wouldn't be offering illegal services though. Being 'pro-choice' is not illegal, nor is publicising that position. So advertising a pro-choice argument is not illegal whatsoever.


Which is the real reason you pretend to be offended.

I've already stated the 'real reason' why I'm offended. This isn't a pro choice vs anti abortion debate. I am personally offended by the content of the billboards and the message it is attempting to get across. What I find odd is that people that I spoke to about it said they didn't like encountering them, wished they weren't there, were offended by them etc. But no one had spoken out about it or lodged a complaint with someone who could actually change it.

Surely if people were offended and didn't want to see this campaign then they would take steps to change that?

csi vegas

xsiborg wrote: »

csi in fairness now, you're making some incredible assumptions in this thread.

if you want your opinion to be taken seriously, cut back on the disparaging generalisations against men.

Sorry I like men.
I have one myself. I keep him locked in the bathroom mostly.

prinz

LisaLee wrote: »

I've already stated the 'real reason' why I'm offended.

No you haven't. You've pinged around from saying the word 'always' causes offence, to saying you aren't happy having this group 'push their agenda' onto you as a commuter which is another matter altogether, because if that is your problem no change in wording solves it.

languagenerd

I was talking about those with friends the other day - we've seen them on the Luas and on the giant billboards. I wouldn't use the word "offended" but I was kind of shocked to see them on the Luas. I can't really explain why but the first time I saw it, I thought "Wow, that shouldn't be there..." and shuddered. I find them insensitive, I guess, and a bit manipulative.

I actually don't know what I personally think about abortion - I can see both sides of the argument and I don't think I could go through with one myself (God forbid I ever find myself in that situation) - but I don't have the right to choose what someone else should do. I guess that makes me pro-choice by default. I just don't think it's as simple as they make out - and the pro-life side tend to come across as militant and lacking compassion... "Abortion tears her life apart" (as these ads say) may be true in some cases, but a traumatic unwanted pregnancy could just as easily tear someone's life apart and could lead to just as many, if not more, catastrophic consequences.

I dunno, bottom line is I just don't like these ads and I'd rather not see them - even if I can't quite explain why!

eviltwin

prinz wrote: »

No you haven't. You've pinged around from saying the word 'always' causes offence, to saying you aren't happy having this group 'push their agenda' onto you as a commuter which is another matter altogether, because if that is your problem no change in wording solves it.

Maybe she is offended by the use of the word always because its a lie?

xsiborg

csi vegas wrote: »

Here's how it is - there are four types of scenario where a woman might consider abortion - rape, risk to a woman's life or the child,
a very young girl, just a child herself or an unbearable fear of the struggles ahead facing life as a single mother combined with childs father/family/friends often very powerful influence towards abortion on a woman who is already very confused, frightened and vunerable.

except that's not how it is at all, not in reality at least. there are numerous reasons why a woman might consider an abortion. i also disagree with the assertion that the father/family/friends would try and influence a girl to have an abortion.

when a girl is confused, frightened and vulnerable, she doesnt need the added guilt trip from the righteous brigade telling her that she should carrry on with the pregnancy, they are not the ones who will have to raise the child. there's a reason it's called "making an informed decision", not a prejudiced one.

csi vegas wrote: »

It is a rare occurence that a woman who is in a secure, loving relationship will choose a termination. Only in this case (rare as I say) should a man have any input.

not as rare as you actually might think, but thankfully you dont have any say in these cases either, you only have a say in your own circumstances.

csi vegas wrote: »

At the end of the day it is the woman's body, emotions and likely lifelong guilt that she has to live with.
A man will never experience the same turmoil.

while men may never feel EXACTLY what a woman feels, they are not incapable of empathy either.

c_man

Disagree with them but hardly offensive. I mean c'mon like.

xsiborg

csi vegas wrote: »

Sorry I like men.
I have one myself. I keep him locked in the bathroom mostly.

NiallFH

Not even slightly offensive to me

csi vegas

xsiborg wrote: »

while men may never feel EXACTLY what a woman feels, they are not incapable of empathy either.

Yes I agree however it will be temporary in comparison to the lasting impact on a woman's life.

Eramen

No, of course I'm not offended.

I don't nurture the 'victim mentality' which seems to afflict so many today. How could I take offense to a poster of this nature which reflects an intellectual opinion? (albeit on a very serious matter, but should that matter)

One either agrees or disagrees with the message. To take it to a personal level, as an 'attack' on ones own petty ego-intelligence, that is 'offensive' in some form or other, is infantile.

This is the world of human nature, and many people have acquired and retain specific opinions which create value in their lives. Man-up or prepare to live in a an unreal perma-offended fantasy world.

Is this billboard offensive? :rolleyes: The question doesn't even make sense intellectually! An emotional response is required to reply to it to be sure..

prinz

eviltwin wrote: »

Maybe she is offended by the use of the word always because its a lie?

If that was the real reason then the OP wouldn't slip back and forth between blaming the word always and having a problem with anti-abortion adverts altogether.

finty

Offended are you? :rolleyes:

http://i.imgur.com/sAXR2.jpg

jhegarty

Free speech* ftw



* Well , free speech that agrees with my viewpoint. Anything else should be banned as it's obviously wrong.

KatieMM

LisaLee wrote: »

I've spotted these billboard ads for Youth Defence popping up around the city centre, and personally find them offensive.

http://www.youthdefence.ie/am_cms_media/tears-billboard-mk2.jpg

Anyone I've spoken to about them doesn't like them, finds them offensive or emotionally manipulative and I've reported it to the ASAI (The Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland).

I wondered what the general public thought about these ads?

good on u LisaLee, I've seen them locally and been really offended. I feel it is emotionally manipulative. One local billboard stating something like 'Noone told me abortion would ruin my life', was spray painted by some brave soul with the words 'But it saved my life'. (not promoting graffiti but that was a brave move).That billboard was promptly taken down and another one with the same agenda put up in its place :mad:

am totally behind ur complaint to the ASAI.

Paparazzo

xsiborg wrote: »

my thoughts on it exactly!

the reason i say this is because around the time of the last abortion debate, i was after getting off a bus in nenagh and heading up to supermacs, when i saw a bunch gathered outside supermacs with posters up on lamp-posts of graphic images of aborted foetuses. it turned my stomach, so i went up to the local garda station and asked had they sought permission to stick up these posters. the garda told me that all they needed was one complaint, twenty minutes later the posters were taken down and the group were moved on.

Do you know if that works on the protests you see outside the GPO or on O'Connell Street? Horrible seeing those pictures being used openly on a street like that.

steve9859

They don't offend me - it would take more than that.

But they are emotionally manipulative. You could argue of course that all adverts are emotionally manipulative at some level, or they would not work. But this crosses a line...where that line is, is for the ASAI to decide.

So I support a complaint on that basis, and also, or course, on the basis that the use of the word 'always' turns the statement into a blatant lie

hatrickpatrick

I don't agree with it, but Freedom of Speech FTW.
To be honest I don't agree with banning anything on grounds of offensiveness. Offensiveness is a very abstract concept and people will b!tch about almost anything these days.

hatrickpatrick

steve9859 wrote: »

They don't offend me - it would take more than that.

But they are emotionally manipulative. You could argue of course that all adverts are emotionally manipulative at some level, or they would not work. But this crosses a line...where that line is, is for the ASAI to decide.

So I support a complaint on that basis, and also, or course, on the basis that the use of the word 'always' turns the statement into a blatant lie

It's up to you whether to choose to be led by ads though. I don't see that it's the government's job to hold anyone's hand and shield them from potentially having their viewpoints challenged? You have free will, you don't have to obey anything whatsoever that you read.

TBH I really don't understand this argument. Are people THAT susceptible to advertising that they have to ban anything which might "trick" them into doing something they don't want to do...?
Frightening situation if so. Truly frightening.

finty

steve9859 wrote: »

So I support a complaint on that basis, and also, or course, on the basis that the use of the word 'always' turns the statement into a blatant lie

I dont support the campaign or have any time for the pro-life brigade


.......but can you explain how using the word always makes it a blatant lie??

mikom

Gabbo abortions are coming.

Shenshen

Not offensive as such... at least not more offensive than their usual stuff.

I think the thing that offends me most about them is the "always". Even for the pro-life crowd, that's just grossly dishonest.

LisaLee

prinz wrote: »

If that was the real reason then the OP wouldn't slip back and forth between blaming the word always and having a problem with anti-abortion adverts altogether.

Where did I state that I had a "problem with anti-abortion adverts altogether"?

My problem with it is based heavily on the wording of the advertisement which I've already explained to you. What I find odd is that some people complain about being offended but don't do anything about it, but I am.

Also, I've seen the Stephen Fry image before, it is just an opinion, some people will agree, others won't. But those who don't want to see this sort of thing emblazoned across billboards can at least try change things by contacting the appropriate bodies, such as the ASAI.

Shenshen

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's up to you whether to choose to be led by ads though. I don't see that it's the government's job to hold anyone's hand and shield them from potentially having their viewpoints challenged? You have free will, you don't have to obey anything whatsoever that you read.

TBH I really don't understand this argument. Are people THAT susceptible to advertising that they have to ban anything which might "trick" them into doing something they don't want to do...?
Frightening situation if so. Truly frightening.

I think it's not so much the emotional manipulation, that's pretty much fair game for anyone.
It's the fact that the statement they put on the billboard is demonstrably incorrect. In other words, an out-and-out lie.
And while I would agree that any advertiser should be allowed to present their product/message in the most postivie or convincing way they can, I think a line needs to be drawn when it comes to straight-out lies.

Remember the atheist bus-billboard campaign? Even they had the decency to phrase it "there probably is no god".

Zulu

csi vegas wrote: »

Here's how it is - there are four types of scenario where a woman might consider abortion...
...A man will never experience the same turmoil.

The sad thing is, you're oblivious to what's wrong with your post.

Suffice to say, as a person I can decide on what is right & what is wrong - without ever having to experience it first hand. I've never experienced racism, yet I believe it's wrong. That opinion of mine is every bit as valid as the opinion of a person who's experienced racism directly.

As a democracy; a democratic society... ...ah listen, forget it. :rolleyes:

xsiborg

csi vegas wrote: »

Yes I agree however it will be temporary in comparison to the lasting impact on a woman's life.

not so either csi. you're making crazy assumptions and generalising again. i see what you're saying, and perhaps in SOME cases it might be true, but it's an awful leap to say that the same thinking could be applied to ALL cases.

Feeona

finty wrote: »

Offended are you? :rolleyes:

http://i.imgur.com/sAXR2.jpg

Looks like Stephen Fry is offended by anyone who gets offended. His quote is just one big whine!

xsiborg

Paparazzo wrote: »

Do you know if that works on the protests you see outside the GPO or on O'Connell Street? Horrible seeing those pictures being used openly on a street like that.

i'd imagine so if they havent sought permission from dublin city council or the relevant authority to put them up. it wasnt even so much the emotive issue though for me, it was the fact that i was rather looking forward to a snack box in supermacs and these fúckers and their posters put me right off! :mad:

prinz

LisaLee wrote: »

Where did I state that I had a "problem with anti-abortion adverts altogether"?

When your argument went from the ad could be phrased differently so as to make it non offensive to..

LisaLee wrote: »

I personally don't want to have to see this sort of thing every day so some group can push their personal agenda at me....

Which is something entirely different, and boils down to you don't want to see adverts from an anti-abortion "agenda"/stance at all.