An Illinois newspaper has rejected pro-life ads featuring a sonogram as too graphic. How dumb do they think we are? They’re rejecting the ads because they’re pro-life ads and they don’t want to get embroiled in the controversy.
When pro-lifers carry posters showing aborted babies, that was too graphic and in certain settings that would be true. I certainly don’t think they need to be in the newspaper. But a photo of an unborn baby through a sonogram? Funny that the FCC doesn’t see it as too graphic for viewing during the prime family viewing hour on network TV. How do I know this? Because at the end of every one of ABC’s “Drew Carey Show”, which was on for seven or eight seasons, I think, had a brief shot of a live ultrasound as part of the promo tag for the production company.
Next thing you know, they’ll be telling us that photographs of newborns are too graphic. Can’t remind people that newborn children were unborn until recently. Might be too controversial.
I’ve included a photo of our baby at 16 weeks in the sonogram up above. You be the judge. Is it too graphic.
Also see the “too graphic” National Right to Life Committee ads here.
Technorati Tags: abortion, media bias, pregnancy
