I don't think it is libellous. It is stupid. But then much of the popular debate on this issue (and many others) is stupid and devolves in slogans. Whether a fetus is a person seems quite separate to me from the duties of the state to provide for poor babies and their mothers.

I would also add that the ad (actually a series of ads) further claim that "pro-life politicians oppose affordable access to abortion for black women. End the Hypocrisy."

Could anything more totally insane be thought? It's hypocritical for a pro-life politician to oppose providing cheap abortions? How ridiculous is this?

Screenshot: http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2wcqxko&s=9

Followed immediately by the already linked to above "End the Hypocrisy" ad. Completely freaking insane.

Last edited by Timocrates (3/17/2016 6:50 pm)

Well, I didn't necessarily mean libelous in the sense of legally actionable. They do pick one political figure (Rep. Duffy) then move to an abstract generalization of all pro-life politicians.

Moreover, it's not clear how they could claim that either the individual or the category of people (pro-life politicians) intend to deny a minimum living wage to black women specifically. This effectively accuses the politician they name and pro-life politicians generally of being both racist and sexist.

Finally, what could be more brazenly false then claiming that a pro-life politician is a hypocrite for refusing to support "affordable" abortions?

Timocrates wrote:

Well, my argument for it constituting libel is the fact that if I became a politician the ad claims that - because I am pro-life - I necessarily do not support a minimum living wage (which I do - and not only for black mothers!!!).

Anyone explain what the supposed rational behind that argument is? The best I can give

1. Pregnancy puts one's health at risk, particularly in cases where the mother is not in optimum physical condition.
2. Many black women live in economically lower end conditions (no racial stereo-typing here folks!)
3. Ergo a percentage of black women will be placed in a more risky situation if they are obliged to bring to full term a pregnancy they would otherwise have terminated.

The above is true but I don't really see what the point of it is. Doubtless the economic burden and thus negative health implications for poor black families (no racial stereo-typing here folks!) would be lessened if they were permitted to leave infants to die on the rubbish heap, or, better yet sell young children into bondage.

Timocrates wrote:

I sometimes think that is part of the idea or intention. Break people's faith in freedom or democracy by scandalizing them. It's a sad tactic to present oneself as being almost impossibly unreasonable. It sometimes seems that some people will even resort to out-and-out emotional blackmail, like a child threatening to hurt themselves if they don't get their way in a last ditch effort.

I never had any faith in democracy, since, popular nature being what it is, incompetence with regards to rule is highly likely. Every age except our own knew that, which is probably, again, due to our incompetence with respect to rulership.

I would also point out that "freedom" in the conservative Hobbiton 'my land, my ways' sense was perfectly well known under British monarchy (we inherit the idea from that time and place), and that our system amounts to a tyranny and a rebellion. I find it strange to be amidst a group systematically suspicious of modernity except with respect to the democratic republic, whose political mechanisms are the source of much of the secular decay that Christians rightly abhor. Hell, even our rebellious fully modern intellectual founders (except, maybe, Jefferson) were suspicious of *popular* rule and put numerous now whittled down barriers in its way.

Last edited by iwpoe (3/19/2016 5:47 pm)