AIBU to think it should be illegal for anti abortion groups to spread propaganda under the guise of electioneering?

[BaileysforBreakfast]

Along with 21 other constituencies, we have a candidate standing as an 'Independent'. She is standing on behalf of 'Vote Life'. Vote Life's webpage clearly states it is "not a political party but a collective banner under which independent candidates can stand. We work with them to ensure they maximise the educational opportunities of the electoral system in advocating for pro-life laws and policy." This seems like a very cynical way to spread propaganda. They have no manifesto as yet (surprise!), but seem to be using this as an opportunity to distribute their graphic leaflets to households in 22 constituencies. AIBU to think the electoral system should not be so easily exploited to allow non-political parties to disseminate anti abortion literature and that only genuine political parties with published manifestos should be allowed to stand? Even the Monster Raving Loony Party has a manifesto and policy proposals.
Please be aware if you live in one of the constituencies, as this very graphic leaflet may be landing on your doorsteps soon. Info about where candidates are standing are on their website.

We have similar. A candidate for the Heritage party. Completely bonkers.

I watched the video - I don't see any indication that it's fake. The cervix is indeed stretched during an abortion, although it's not clear that what is shown is the cervix. The Ectocervix is the part of cervix that projects into the vagina so it could be that which is visible in the video.

Also, if you think this video is fake, what do you think actually takes place during an abortion? The video depicts a D&E surgical abortion as it is described on the NHS website. Nothing paerticularly surprising in the footage, and nothing that goes against the usual process.

Did you expect genuine footage of an abortion to be less graphic?

The pictures. See above. The claim that Conservative FORCED abortion onto NI when it was hard won by the women of that country.

Basically, if you disagree with their stance on abortion, fine. Both parties are 100% entitled to their own opinion.

But if you think that the information and images they are showing are fake, you need to provide evidence for this. If they are genuine, you need to assess why you were initially surprised and doubtful. Perhaps you're not as clued up on what an abortion invovles as you thought. If you support something, you have to be aware of what it involves.

Which pictures?
Is it a photo that they're claiming shows the reality of abortion? Or perhaps just an illustration for general campaigning purposes?

I can't find the exact part of the website that says they forced aboriton on NI. But I don't think you can call that "misinformation", it's just an interpretation of what was going on politically at the time, which some agree with and others don't agree with. Some of the Greens' predictions on the climate, which they stated with absolute certaity, have not materialised - do you think they should be banned from running?

So you'd like to police people's language around that too? If @Fedupmumofadultsons feels that it's ending the life of a child, shouldn't they be able to say that? Should I not be able to say I lost the baby who would have been my 2nd child at 13 weeks because you feel my terminology isn't scientifically correct @BaileysforBreakfast ?

Women who suffer a miscarriage can describe their pregnancy loss however they like; political campaigners should use the correct terms.
A foetus does not become a baby until it can live independently.

OP do you not realise that a lot of people are in fact pro-life/anti-abortion?

Should they be allowed to make that decision for other women, or should abortion be between a woman and her doctor?

When something becomes a "baby" is a philosophical and ethical argument, not a scientific one. Semantics is open to debate, no one has a monopoly on what terms you can and can't use. Throughout my pregnancies, doctors and midwives have referred to it as a "baby". On the NHS website, it's referred to as a baby (except on pages discussing abortion).

I'm pretty sure it is a fake video as it looks like the cervix is outside her body. That doesn't happen, surely? There is hair growing next to the cervix. Hair. Inside a vagina? Come off it.

I have no problem watching the video.

I am pro-choice. I am aware of how abortions work. . I do not think those with anti abortion views are allowed to lie by videoing a fake cervix/abortion. Watch the video. Who the fuck has bikini line hair next to their cervix, which is outside their vagina?

The pro-choice/pro-abortion lobby in the UK is incredibly powerful - if a pro-life organisation was using fake videos, they would come down on this like a tonne of bricks.
I also highly doubt that an organisation trying to get votes for its independent candidates would risk doing something so foolish as using fake footage and photos. But I might contact Vote Life and ask them how they obtained the footage to see. From everything I understand about the surgical abortion procedure, this looks authentic.

No political party can call themselves pro life when women who continue their pregnancies are then expected to survive on £700 a month from the government. This wouldn’t even cover my rent. And full time childcare in my area would be over £2000 a month if going back to work instead - so equally unfeasible. Be pro life all you want but how you expect these children to be raised to people in poverty, single parents etc I really don’t know. When I previously fell pregnant unexpectedly due to failed contraception, I knew I would have no choice but to move home to my parents. I was lucky to have that - the alternative would have been what? On the streets?

I hope someone tries to deliver one of these in my area. I would love to give them a piece of my mind.

And women still sadly die in childbirth, or are left with life-long injuries. Less commonly than in the past, down to better care, but also partly due to the options available in high-risk pregnancies? I have a friend with a condition that means she absolutely must not get pregnant. If she does, she could die. Pregnancy is a known risk factor with her condition.

I'm pro-choice, but I feel that there's a strange culture of denial among some other pro-choicers. They insist that any footage of an abortion (or the aftermath) must be fake - It's as though they want to believe that even late-stage abortion consists of a shapeless blob of cells being removed. They say it's manipulative to say "baby" instead of "foetus" with regard to abortion, even though it's completely commonplace for everyone (including healthcare professionals) to say "baby" regarding every other aspect of pregnancy. In fact, even writing this, I'm half-expecting to be accused of "having an agenda", because "no true pro-choicer would post this".

Thanks for this info about what sounds like a very US approach - 'make abortion a voting issue' is what was done there. It's good to know about potential future risks to abortion rights even though none of this lot will be elected.

Tbh it's useful to know that according to this bunch, Labour intend to reform abortion law so that it is properly legal and not illegal-until-a-doctor-says-so. Good news!

And I have to say, even though everything he says is wrong, Christian Hacking is a truly bodacious name. I hope it's real.

FGS. No one is INSISTING photos are fake. They are questioning their authenticity based on other sources. I'm also pretty sure that no pro choicer 'wants to believe' that late stage abortion is a 'shapeless blob of cells'. 😂

No I don't think they should be stopped from standing. If folk want to stand on a single issue they can. Like Brexit or trans issues. If you don't support the issue then don't vote for them. Its nothing to do with agreeing or not agreeing with the particular issue. So I totally disagree with your point.

Yes, Christian Hacking is a stand-out name, isn't it?
However, it seems from this thread that many are sanguine - or claim to be - about having this crap delivered to their doormats and are happy to ignore the creep of 'pro-life' (I prefer the term forced-birthers) rhetoric and the threat to our current rights. They also seem happy to defend the group's use of dodgy claims and pictures.
How a candidate can stand without manifesto or policy proposals still baffles me.

I would like to know this too. There's not much transparency on that front and Google isn't much help either.

So all the babies down in special care on oxygen or other support who aren't yet 'living independently' are still foetuses?

I agree with you, OP. This is a case of a lobbying group cynically jumping on the election to peddle their view.

I have seen a woman handing out these leaflets outside a local tube station at rush hour. Totally inappropriate. It’s a free country, but if you can dish out graphic propaganda on a Monday morning, you can get it back. She got a death stare from me and a loud ‘shame on you!’ from a group of Mums with young kids. Several people complained to the station guard. She hasn’t been back.