A billboard in a paddock advising passing travelers, “A heart beats at four weeks,” has caused outrage and triggered a petition demanding its removal.
Shaynie Croese expressed outrage that in 2019 people are allowed to have freedom of speech for political opinions that she disagrees with, namely, the desire to restrict people from killing other living humans. She believes people with beliefs shouldn’t be allowed to speak in public.
“A lot of people are outraged that in 2019 we still have organisations that are allowed to have a billboard that is basically just telling women what to do with their bodies. We are a secular state now and have been for a long time. Fair enough these organisations have a belief, but that highway is a public domain.” – Shaynie Croese [Nine News]
Surely we have reached peak stupidity as a society when people are unashamed of the murderous intents of their hearts, even proud to advocate for the ‘right’ to kill another living human. If not stupidity, then depravity, for not since the idolatrous sacrifice of children in the fires of pagan god Molech has a society been so hell-bent on killing its offspring. Now we do it on an industrial scale with much less smoke. The human rights campaign against killing kids could be put a lot more bluntly than the civil way this billboard does.
This billboard and ones like it going up around Australia are sponsored by pro-life organisation Emily’s Voice which seeks to “restart and reshape the life conversation in a sensible, sensitive way free of guilt and condemnation so women make an informed choice. We are pro-women and for-children.”
Refuse silence. Sign the counter petition:
“To the Founder and CEO of oOh! Media, Brendon Cook
Australia needs to be allowed have a civil conversation about human rights with all the science and options presented clearly, without censorship, so women can make an informed choice when facing the difficulty of an unplanned pregnancy. The Emily’s Voice billboard on private property on the Pacific Highway in Belmont North is scientifically factual, appropriately sensitive and beautifully positive. It does not contravene any advertising standards.
Your hasty capitulation to the demands of a noisy but tiny number of members of the public is disappointing in that it represents a failure to defend freedom of speech and liberal debate of important public issues. Your reputation is not served by appearing to enable censorship of the civil conversations which a mature society benefits from.“