The ethical implications of advertising to children have sparked considerable debate. While some argue that such advertisements are unfair and exploitative, others believe they are not necessarily harmful. In my view, advertising to children is largely unethical due to their vulnerability, although there could be exceptions based on age and maturity. Proponents of advertising to children contend that it can be beneficial under certain conditions. They acknowledge that some ads, like those promoting sugary cereals during children's TV shows, are indeed exploitative. However, they argue that older children possess the ability to think critically and control their impulses. For instance, a ten-year-old might see an advertisement for a water park or a sporting event and successfully persuade their parents to engage in a healthy and enjoyable activity. In such cases, advertisements can serve as useful information rather than manipulation. Conversely, the majority of children are adversely affected by advertisements because they lack the necessary self-control and cognitive development to resist persuasive messaging. Unlike adults, children do not have the experience or higher-order reasoning skills required to understand and critique advertisements. For example, if a young child is exposed to ads for alcohol or violent video games, they are likely to develop a desire for these inappropriate products. Even if they do not gain access to such items, the allure has already been ingrained, potentially influencing their behaviour and preferences long-term. Research substantiates that early childhood impressions and habits are enduring and can be challenging to change later in life. In conclusion, while there might be a case for certain advertisements aimed at older children, the general practice of targeting young, impressionable children with marketing should be banned. Implementing such regulations will be complex, but it is a necessary step that many countries are already taking to protect their youngest citizens.