In the case of the article, it sounds like the author is opposed to profiling and targeting. There are many reasons for that. Personally, I find it exploitati

In the case of the article, it sounds like the author is opposed to profiling and targeting. There are many reasons for that. Personally, I find it exploitative. In the case of the article, it was pointing out prejudiced assumptions. Reading the article, I could infer cases where that prejudice could have a very negative impact. I'm going to be blunt here: there are circumstances under which women desire yet cannot bear their own children. It is a heavy burden that they may carry through much of their adult life. It can have a much deeper impact than being unable to afford some creature comfort or being unable to seat a child in a luxury car. Perhaps it can be argued that the number in a savings account can have an equally heavy burden, say for someone who has had everything taken away from them. I'm not the one to make that argument since I place the value of the person above that of dollar. That being said, I am not particularly fond of direct advertising. Not only is it intrusive, but most forms of direct advertising involve making some sort of decision regarding who to advertise to. Even choosing people within a particular postal/zip code is going to result in bias, even if it is an unintentional consequence of structural problems within our society. Couple that with the intent of direct advertising having a larger impact, you end up with the negative consequences having a larger impact.