Comments on: Google to display religious groups' anti-abortion ads

In settlement, search giant backs down on its advertising policy regarding abortion, Christian group says. It now enables "religious associations to place ads on abortion in a factual way."

[Lerianis]

Good. Frankly, if people saw anti-abortion ads and saw the pictures of abortions (as I have), they would turn totally against abortion for anyone (as I have) unless it is to save the life of the woman in question (which it almost NEVER is).

[TheVampireCabbit]

Ive seen both, and im still for abortion, so that statement is hardly true. Frankly you can put as many pictures and stuff in front of me that show a fetus sucking its thumb, or torn to pieces by a vacuum, i wont care (and using either is just trying to get people guilty) they are nothing more than bundles of cells that will become humans eventually. its a womans (often stressful) choice whether or not she wants to have a child, and no one needs a load of guilt inducing religious propaganda when theyre trying to make an emotion filled life choice.

Also, as a side note, i agree that abortion doesnt seem to be is used to save womens lives too much, but i think itis used far more to stop the fetus wrecking them.

[sanenazok]

@Vamp - I think the point of Lerianis' comment was that by banning these ads in the UK, Google was keeping people away from information and that this information (abortion pics) is important to knowing whether abortion is just a removal of a clump of cells or the killing of a human being. It's fine for you to have made up your mind,

[close5828]

Funny how so many people believe it's it is they or the government, never not the individual woman who should decide what happens w/ her body.

I wish they cared 1/2 as much about fighting poverty, disease, or hunger.

[TheyCallMeGeorge]

Yet another pro-choicer who completely misses the point. That woman can do whatever she wants with her body. I don't care. Carelessness with her body is how she got pregnant in the first place, and nobody is trying to deny her that right. It's when the rights of another human being are being infringed upon, that the government needs to step in. My right to swing my fist stops where your nose starts.

It's funny how pro-aborts don't care about giving women information other than abort here, abort now. They can't stand it that women really do have a choice, and that some people care about giving them an option.

I wish they new how much Christian and religious groups give to fighting poverty, disease and hunger, if they actually cared about fact finding, they would see it is quite a lot. http://www.bread.org/learn/links.html, http://www.lifewater.org/who_we_are/FAQs.html, http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=5565.

[bbarou]

1Cr 6:19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?
1Cr 6:20 For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.

Your body is not your own and you don't 'own' the child inside of you. That child is a completely separate human being that depends on you, just like the elderly depend on people to take care of them.

[quirK]

I wished the parties concerned would stop shirking personal responsibility.

We lambaste idolatrous pagans for sacrificing children to their gods in historical times. In contemporary times they still do, but the gods and the methods have changed considerably.

[Dalkorian]

by bbarou September 17, 2008 4:21 PM PDT
Your body is not your own ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you feel like being a slave to something you've never seen, it's your choice. But MY body IS my own, it's certainly not yours or anyone else's. Your comment is offensive to me (but I'll defend your right to voice your own opinion!).

[sanenazok]

That's interesting, I'm pretty sure that they had different policies in the US. When I type in "abortion" or "Mormonism" I get results in ads both pro and con. I wonder why they would have a different policy towards controversial topics in the UK of all places. I understand that Germans outlaw mention or discussion of Nazi materials, but the UK has pretty similar free speech provisions as the US (well except for libel/slander).

[W Macaulay]

I don't know the tone that was used by this pro-life group, but as long as political discourse isn't vitriolic, free speech ought to be encouraged. It's a bit scary to think that only beliefs Google supports will be disseminated on their servers -- "Do No Evil" is their motto... and free speech is an absolute part of doing good. I'm glad the story has this ending.

In the "abortion debate" the "vitriol" is usually from the Pro-choice, and seeing as how this is coming from the Pro-life side, there probably would have been narry a harsh word spoken...

[Dalkorian]

by September 17, 2008 3:14 PM PDT
In the "abortion debate" the "vitriol" is usually from the Pro-choice, and seeing as how this is coming from the Pro-life side, there probably would have been narry a harsh word spoken...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my experiences you couldn't have it more backward. The "pro-choice" crowd typically believes YOU have the right to determine what course of action you take with your body, where the "pro-life" crowd [1] typically believes THEY have the right to determine what course of action you take with your body. Quite a difference there, not sure how you got it so backwards. Notice how the "pro-choice" crowd does NOT demand that all women get abortions, just that they have the right to make that decision themselves. Conversely, the anti-abortion crowd demands that all abortions are made illegal in all circumstances, regardless of the individuals situation or beliefs (that feels more vitriolic to me).

[1] - It should be pointed out that the anti-abortion crowd forever lost the rights to the "pro-life" title when they started advocating and even practicing in killing abortion doctors.

[kjeeri]

No more use of Google or any of its products or services from now on. It's a shame, a catastrophe really, thatt grown-up people still believe in ghosts, all kinds of superstition and old stupid propaganda stories.

Free speech means that you have the right to express your views without being harrassed or worse by the king/queen/PM/president or whatever powers that be. Please learn a bit of history...

Are you saying you are disappointed that someone has now been given the ability to express their view, where they weren't before?

[sanenazok]

Can't please everyone I guess. Certain can't please you!

[cyberDJ-2038765336053745013836]

The religious right will stop at nothing to assimilate the weak and helpless.

And the religious left will always shout down any opposing viewpoint. They always want one message, don't let the other side speak, too bad, they miss out on a lot of good information that way. What a shame...

It always surprises me when people get upset when there is freedom of ideas and views. What are they afraid of? If an abortion clinic can have an ad on google, why can't an adoption clinic have an ad? If someone has information that abortion is little more than an outpatient procedure with no real consequences and they can display that information, why can't someone who has information to the contrary do the same? That just seems right - hearing all sides, welcoming all points of view, that is "doing no evil."

[siramic]

Yes, good point, adoption, what a wonderful concept?!

I could care less if the ads are there or not. As long as they do not include questionable photos.

[sanenazok]

I don't think any Google ads can have photos just yet. Also, if the photos are of an actual abortion then why can't a website show them? It's part of the procedure and if one supports abortions one has to accept the reality of it.

[ggordonliddy]

Why is it wrong to put babies in the microwave after they are born? This is a serious question; if it's okay to put the baby in more pain 1 minute before it is born, how can anyone that is pro-abortion have ANY problem with any type of destruction of the fetus once it is born? There is absolutely no difference morally.

[Dalkorian]

Now you're just being silly. Show me anywhere that will perform a third trimester abortion, particularly one where the baby is just 1 minute to birth.

I could counter your silliness with a serious question - when does the embryo become a fetus and when does it become a "baby"? Is a woman's period an abortion, after all that egg COULD have been fertilized and COULD have become a baby?

Should miscarriages be illegal too? After all, a baby died. (I know this one is a stretch, since it wasn't "killed" - the question is more to make you think than it is fishing for an answer.)

I'm a man who believes this is a woman's personal decision to make. In a world where children are sexually abused, physically abused, emotionally abused and sometimes not even fed, why force people to have more of them if they don't want them? "We didn't force them to have unprotected sex ...", what about rape victims?

STOP IMPOSING YOUR IDIOTIC MORALITY ON OTHERS!

[bakedtater]

you are an idiot--and i'm sure a man.

[clamenza]

I want to see pictures of dead and mutilated women that have to get back-alley abortions because their countries or localities don't offer abortions. Hard to find on these kinds of sites, though.

And I just love post-term abortions. Praise God!

[ggordonliddy]

What women "have" to get an abortion, other than the rare cases where the mother is going to die from the baby?

And what complete idiot wrote this comment editor where you can't even use the arrow keys?!! I assume it is a Mac user.

[ljwetter]

As a Roman Catholic woman I am pro-adoption if the case need be. However I accept abortion in regards to all rapes, incest, and endangerment to the mothers life. When I here other the McCain campaign using the Catholic Church as a puppet for his election. Catholics have you forgotten that both McCain and Palin have voted against state assistance for single impoverished young women. Do these advocates of McCain/Palin know that they support Palins stance on not doing anything to end the overwhelming cases of rape in Alaska. Should that occur through out America? Please don't scoff at the fact that over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians who include pregnant women, an Arch-Bishop of Mosala, a few priests and many innocent Catholics of Mosala have been killed due to this war that Bush and McCain have increased. Bush even admitted saying that he didn't understand why we were losing lets rev it up and kill as many of them as we can. The them include pregnant women, infants and children.

Also I suggest you log on to www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf. The Bishops who wrote this text state, "In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that ALL issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take in account a candidate's commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue." Every issue including murder of an unborn due to war should be included.

[boxter]

Discrimination laws are ridiculous.. haha. Oh well, what can you do when the politicians in charge are not quite as smart as monkeys.

[siramic]

I guess freedom of speech ends at the doorstep of, "if it's conservative, republican, or religious, it must be narrow minded bigots, who want to cram their beliefs on me". I guess the fear of being challenged with another opinion is to much for some, who might be so weak, that in seeing an opposing side, would cause them to doubt, or question their beliefs/opinions. Good for Google, they were able to see beyond that (and maybe wanted to quell the controversy that would follow) and allow both sides to be seen and expressed. I'm amazed that some of the woman's groups (NOW), or woman in general, aren't as "up in arms" of the exploitation of woman, on all the porn sites, as the are in the abortion debate. (Yet, I know they are 2 different issues....)

Just a thought, why was Laci Peterson just carrying a fetus when she died, but when they found the fetus, they gave him a name and called him baby Conner, with Scott Peterson being charged with a "unborn" baby's (not a fetus) death?
Taken from Wikipedia:
The death of Laci and her unborn son led to the United States Congress passing the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which is widely known as Laci and Conner's Law.

[Tergon]

Wait so can Google also put up planned parenthood pro-choice ads?? How about Doctors who preform abortions.

BTW pro-choice is NOT ANTI-LIFE it is as other posters have stated the freedom to make one's own mind up on whether the human life made would be better served alive or not, there might be fewer people who shouldn't have children if they felt they had the ability to choose when and if they had a child, and fewer children who had horrible (as in abusive) family lives too.

Abortion is a option not a requirement for a planned family as opposed to one thrown together like the Daughter of Veep candidates who are obviously (as seen in many pictures) still living their youth and not ready for a child of their own. As opposed to their parents, who see it as an opportunity to calm her down and put her in her place. Maybe she would on her own choose to have the baby, but shouldn't she be given the choice.

Google is right to allow these commercials (as long as they are factual) but should also open the door for the other side to and not do this because it is some perceived religious persecution

[williamjacobs]

Agreed. Keep teh ads honest, and it serves a better purpose than pro-life ads in many other sources that don't have rules about keeping things honest.

The ad pictured mentions it is a Christian outfit. Not scientific. Go in to that ad knowing you are getting a religious viewpoint. Fine.

As for the guy who was turned pro-life because of pictures? I bet I can make that guy a vegetarian overnight. Just because something is horrifying doesn't make it illegal. Unprovoked wars, for example.