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.

Hopefully anyone with any sense/compassion would stay well clear of voting for any anti-abortion party though.

So, in other words, they think thry have more say over a woman's body than the woman does herself?

Absolutely wild to see so many commenters defending anti-abortion propaganda!

I made it perfectly clear why I suspect the first part of the video is fake. Explain external cervix and body hair. I didn't comment on the validity of others. So you are inventing a non-event.

No one is dumb enough to think a late abortion is a shapeless blob. No one has said that other than you ..why is that?

Of course I know what happens during an abortion. Do you you imagine I think they wave a magic wand and bang! The baby is gone?

Explain external cervix next to body hair.

@DoreenonTill8 The distinction between a foetus and a baby is when the baby can breath for itself and live independently from the mother.
I'm sorry I didn't realise I had to make it clear that an incubator is not a gestating woman.

I'm happy to be wrong if someone can explain what I'm seeing in the first abortion video, that looks like trimmed body hair to me. If it's part of the vaginal anatomy I am ignorant of, please do enlighten me.

Thankfully these one issue candidates who usually have extreme views, get only a handful of votes and loose their deposit.

Well as they're independent candidates, I'm guessing they all do their own fundraising.

Not sure why my link was deleted. I'm just showing a gofundme from one of the candidates, in answer to someone's assumption that they're possibly being funded by the US.

Yeah. Absolutely wild that people have different opinions to you and are exercising their freedom of speech! Much better if we censor everyone who disagrees with you.

So if you understand that surgical D&E abortion does involve removing a foetus/baby that has visibly human limbs, which is what we see in the video, why should they be compelled to show a fake video? They want to show people the reality of abortion, and we all know that a late term abortion isn't just removing some featureless tissue. So they'd literally have no need to use fake footage.

Surely it shows the cervix being stretched, and the baby being removed through the vagina, which is between the thighs, which can have hair on them. I don't understand what's so puzzling.

If you are anti abortion, just don't have an abortion. Should you have the right to remove abortion access from other women?
Are there any circumstances in which you think a woman should be allowed to have an abortion? How about when;

• an underage child is raped and becomes pregnant.
• incest.
• The fetus is not viable and cannot survive outside of the womb.
• The woman will die unless her dead or dying fetus is removed.
• the pregnancy is a molar pregnancy.

We're not debating abortion. We're discussing whether one-issue candidates should be able to use the election to raise awareness around pro life causes, and the legitimacy of the organisation that's doing so.

Aren’t the anti-abortion crowd trying to do just that?

No, they're trying to offer people alternative information to counterbalance the one-sided narrative around abortion, and influence policy. That's what makes them so different from the pro-abortion lobby, whose main agenda is to censor anyone who disagrees with them so they can maintain the status quo, which they of course believe to be moral and right.

The pro-life movement's main struggle has been against censorship. Even on this thread people are describing it as outrageous and wild and shocking that they're giving out leaflets and knocking on doors, simply because they disagree with them. There are lots of organisations that stand for things I'm against, but I fully support their freedom to speak, campaign and disseminate information.

I think those graphic leaflets would be shocking to women who have suffered a miscarriage. Either you have a compelling case or you have to resort to emotional blackmail.
The anti abortion crowd are trying to remove women's right to have a medical procedure, even when she will die without it, and we have the right to talk about that.

Yes you absolutely have the right to talk about it. So do those who are against it.

If they're shocking, it just shows that people don't really understand the reality of what abortion is, and justifies the need to disseminate such information and images. You can't support something and then prohibit people being shown the reality of what it is they're defending. Do you think Peta should be banned from sharing images of animals in laboratories?

(That said, the video actually seems to show a fairly early abortion)

If you think that abortion is just a safe and simple removal of pregnancy tissue that is not yet a person with rights or consciousness, and that it's not this harrowing and ugly thing that campaigners falsely claim it to be, then you should be 100% comfortable with viewing images and videos of an abortion. It shouldn't be "shocking" or "graphic" as people are claiming it is here, because according to those who are pro-abortion, there is nothing morally reprehensible about it.
The fact is, many people do find the images disturbing, because they actually didn't know fully what an abortion involves. And to that end, I do think pro-life/anti-abortion groups have the right to share images and raise awareness around the reality of abortion. At the very least people can then understand what they're supporting, or indeed decide that it's unbearable to watch and therefore they can't support it.

I couldn't watch a video of open heart surgery but I don't want it banned. Why should people have to watch a video of an abortion to think it should be legal?

Still waiting for evidence about the supposedly "dodgy claims and pictures"

You can literally turn on the TV and see an open heart surgery. And people don't use the same moral terms to describe footage of heart surgery, such as "shocking", "manipulative" or "disturbing". I could share a video of a surgery online and nothing would happen. If I shared a video of an abortion, MN would delete it immediately. I wonder if even the most ardent pro-choice advocates believe that removing or operating on an organ is the same as removing a foetus. If they do, then they need to stop complaining about footage of abortion being available to watch on a website.