The plans have sparked controversy, with pro-life campaigners accusing advertising authorities of \”trivialising\” human life by treating terminations as a consumer choice like cars or washing powder.
They emerged as a report accused clinics of using \”hard sell\” marketing to push pregnant women seeking counselling into having terminations, in order to make more money.
Under the draft recommendations, drawn up by the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice, which regulates TV and radio commercials, dozens of independent hospitals carrying out abortions will be able to advertise their services to consumers.
Until now, restrictions have meant abortion clinics can only advertise their services if they are not run for profit.
This is amusing, isn\’t it?
All those screaming that private companies must not be allowed to cherry pick from the NHS, must not be allowed to profit from health care. So, you are all up in arms about private for profit companies being able to make money out of
killing babies women controlling their fertility then?
If not, why not?
But to the specific point of advertising on TV: if it\’s legal to do the act, which it is, legal to perform the service or produce the good, then I\’d say it\’s legal for you to advertise it. Simple freedom of speech would seem to require that. Why is the producer of one legal good allowed to tell people about their production and the producer of another not?
This does rather run into the problem that my view would therefore allow the advertising of booze, fags, dildoes and all the rest on TV. Which, of course, it would. And I have a sneaky feeling that those most likely to say that \”Of course!\” abortion clinics should be allowed to advertise would be those most against allowing baccy to be advertised. Which is an odd position to hold really: both kill people but one incidentally, the other the death is the very purpose. Odd to argue that only the one that intends to kill is the one allowed to advertise.
Still, the fact that there are restrictions on what can be avertised, on whatever grounds, makes their case for allowing the advertising of abortion clinics a little harder. For once the \”it\’s legal, go ahead\” line has been breached, then what are the dividing lines between what can and cannot be advertised?
\”What I like or approve of\” isn\’t a justification for such restrictions upon free speech really, is it?
So on what basis can we distinguish between \”Come kill your baby with us, we really care\” and \”Have a gin M\’Dear\”?
Or even, why can\’t the gin companies advertise a bottle and a hot bath in competition with the abortion clinics?
Yes, I know my views on abortion are well out of the mainstream. No, that\’s not the point of this piece at all.