Is this "Pro-Life" ad disingenuous, or am I just over-reacting?

“We call a father who neglects his child emotionally, financially, and [something else] a deadbeat dad.”

“And a woman who neglects her child emotionally, financially and [something else] is called … pro-choice?”

“[blather about pro-life stance and issues, of no relevance to anything in particular]”

Other than the fact that these are two completely different issues (child support vs. abortion)…is there any amount of truth to this commercial at all, or is it just … icky like that?

What do you mean? Does the commercial have any truth to it? Is this even a real commercial?

If you mean the latter, then I can’t say I’ve seen this one.

“Deadbeat”? I just call him plain ol’ “dad”…

I was wondering how misleading/false the ad seems to y’all. The ad is definitely real; I heard it last night.

Did you possibly misquote the commercial? It would make more sense if the second line ended ‘pro-life’. In the inflexible worldview of the people who think up these adds, a pro-choice woman wouldn’t have children, having terminated all her pregnancies.

I suppose it’s possible that a pro-life mother not ready for the job, but without alternative, could be neglectful, but that too is a dishonest broad-brush characterization.

In short, the commercial is drek no matter who it belongs to or what their agenda.

Sounds very misleading/false/inaccurate to me. I’m know a lot of good mothers who are also pro-choice (my own Mom included).

I know rather

whats pro choice?(i’m simple, I apologize.)

magic8ball, pro-choice means that you believe a woman should have the choice to have an abortion. (Not necessarily you per se, but you in the general sense.)

I think the commercial is screwed up, iampunha, although my brain is kind of scrambled right now because of a cold.

I would like to think that most pro-choice women don’t have children unless they want them. Women that neglect their children emotionally, financially, and any other way are just bad mothers.

No, it sounds jacked to me tool, and my father was alternately abusive and neglectful as well.

The ad makes sense. To pro-lifers, a child is a child at conception, so a mother who is pro-choice (actually, one who has had an abortion) is, indeed neglecting her child emotionally, etc. by murdering it.

I’m a good mom, and I’m pro-choice.

I think most ads on the abortion debate are by definition disingenuous. It’s propaganda, after all.


I concur. I think I am equally repulsed by pro-choice and pro-life commercials. It is just another example of the tone of a debate is controlled by the extremists.

In case you’re operating under the assumption that a woman who is pro-choice would have an abortion, bear in mind that being pro-choice does not necessarily mean being in favor of abortion. Beside which, “deadbeat dad” does not apply to pre-birth months so much as ex-utero time/child support/etc. A woman who has an abortion isn’t, by virtue of not spending money on a child after its death, neglecting a child if said child is not alive for money to be spent on (through whatever cause of cessation of life).* Otherwise there are at least two people on this board who could be mislabeled (through this “reasoning”) pro-choice, and one of them is my mother. She ain’t pro-choice as far as I know;)

*Does this make sense? What I’m trying to say is that the personal attribute “not spending money on my dead unborn child” does not in and of itself make one pro-choice. Seems like the people who make these ads don’t understand what being pro-choice means.

Well, I have heard some people express the opinion that it’s not “fair” that a woman gets a choice to either bring her pregnancy to term and raise the child or have an abortion, but a man has no choice in the matter–if the woman decides to keep the baby, he’s stuck for child support whether he wants it or not.

A man who does not want to support a child becomes a deadbeat; a woman who does not want to support a child has an abortion.

So, perhaps the ads are simply saying that if men don’t get a choice, women should not get one either.

A disingenuous political ad? :eek::eek::eek:

Shocked! Shocked I am.

Are you that concerned with the semantics of this, or is there a real issue here? I think the point is not particularly well-made in the ad, but I get it (which generally means it must be pretty obvious). “Neglect” here describes the most severe form of it, I suppose.

Again, perhaps it’s not a well-crafted ad, but I wouldn’t spend a lot of time scratching my head over whether or not they believe a mother should be sending checks to the child she aborted. I don’t think they mean that. I think Tamex hit the nail on the head. This ad may be clumsy, but it doesn’t seem disingenuous to me.

The ad is disingenuous because it falsely equates pro-choice women and women who have abortions. I am pro-choice, and I have never had an abortion. And I can guarantee you that not all women who have abortions consider themselves pro-choice.

What am I missing? To state that all women who seek abortions are pro-choice is not the same as saying all pro-choice women seek abortions, is it? The former does not imply the latter.

**They can consider themselves whatever they’d like. That won’t change their status from a practical perspective. Unless you’re suggesting there are abortions being forced on pro-life women?

Some women have abortions because they were raped, or their doctor advises them to do so for the sake of their health, yet they remain opposed to abortion-at-will. Other women (an old flatmate of mine was one) rationalise their own personal need for an abortion while still insisting that, in general, abortion should remain illegal. These women are not pro-choice. Pro-choice is a belief, not a “status”.