Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Americanhumanist.org

I live in Colorado and the anti-choice idiots have put another "personhood" petition on the ballot.

I can't find a link to it (but I'll post it when I do) but this group posted a brilliant ad in response to the anti-choice crowd about a woman's decision to have an abortion.

It's fucking brilliant.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 20October 29, 2014 3:09 AM

What are we supposed to be reading?

by Anonymousreply 1October 26, 2014 7:42 PM

We're supposed to be looking at an ad. This one?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 2October 26, 2014 9:54 PM

BTW Mississippi voted against the Personhood Amendment, so if Colorado and North Dakota adopt it, it means their people are even dumber than Mississippians. Of course, it was probably the first time anyone in Mississippi actually saw a liberal point of view on television.

by Anonymousreply 3October 26, 2014 10:03 PM

[quote]BTW Mississippi voted against the Personhood Amendment, so if Colorado and North Dakota adopt it, it means their people are even dumber than Mississippians. Of course, it was probably the first time anyone in Mississippi actually saw a liberal point of view on television.

Colorado's defeated similar measures twice in the last eight years but they keep trying. It won't pass this time either.

by Anonymousreply 4October 26, 2014 10:05 PM

[quote]We're supposed to be looking at an ad. This one?

It's a print ad.

by Anonymousreply 5October 26, 2014 10:06 PM

Or this one?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 6October 26, 2014 10:28 PM

Probably not this one

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 7October 26, 2014 10:36 PM

For Christ's sake OP!

Please link directly to the ad or don't bother posting shit like this next time.

by Anonymousreply 8October 26, 2014 10:38 PM

Here's a print ad I guess

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 9October 26, 2014 10:54 PM

200 years ago slaves were thought of as less than human. Today it's the unborn.

You can understand the need for women to have the option to terminate pregnancies, but still accept that this does end a developing life. It's a serious, sad matter. I don't understand the hatred towards people who mourn the loss of innocent life. Or the glibness of the "Obvious Child"/ Jenny Slate POV, or the Freedom From Religion Foundation abortion promoters.

Contraception is readily available. Abortions should be rare. Celebrating them as no big deal isn't choice, it's antilife.

Wait until one of you has a surrogate mother carrying your child and she decides to abort it. You'll mourn a developing life.

by Anonymousreply 10October 26, 2014 11:12 PM

Nonsense R10. Science has disproved your screed. Most pregnancies do not result in children. And what about women who take fertility drugs and are going to have 6 or 8 babies? Is it murder for them to reduce the number? I hope your world never comes to pass, it is a scary and unethical place.

by Anonymousreply 11October 26, 2014 11:30 PM

[quote]Please link directly to the ad or don't bother posting shit like this next time.

[quote]I can't find a link to it (but I'll post it when I do)

R8 I fucking said I'd post one when I find it.

Eat me, asswipe.

by Anonymousreply 12October 26, 2014 11:34 PM

R11 When there's a marker for potentially gay/lesbian embryos, and people start aborting them, favoring heterosexual embryos, we'll see what you have to say.

Your post makes no sense - my point is that a woman's decision to terminate a developing life is sad and mournful, and should be rarer than it is. There's nothing scary or unethical about that.

It's not the same as getting a haircut, as extremists maintain.

by Anonymousreply 13October 26, 2014 11:42 PM

Now if R12's mother only could choose a retroactive abortion... A time-travelling morning-after pill, that woman could take in order to erase het addhole adult children from existence. True choice.

by Anonymousreply 14October 27, 2014 12:16 AM

edit -"her asshole adult children"

by Anonymousreply 15October 27, 2014 12:22 AM

We believe that the world would be a better place IF EVERY CHILD BORN WAS WANTED, loved, and whose parents were prepared and willing to provide them with a fulfilling life.

Many Americans feel that parents who aren’t able to afford basic needs for their children should receive assistance from private and government collaboration. In order to reduce these public costs, sex education should be provided to young people, as well as education about the responsibilities of parenting and the impact of raising a child in the context of a fulfilling life. Contraceptives should be made available. They are used by an overwhelming majority of sexually active couples, including couples whose religious dogmas officially prohibit them. In addition to abstinence, contraceptives serve to prevent most unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted infections, and abortions.

The objection of anti-abortion organizations to contraceptives and abortion is based on the religious belief that a soul enters the embryo at conception and that every act of sex should be for procreation. We respect their right to adhere to their faith and we recognize that they are sincere in their beliefs.

However, many women do not share these beliefs. They base their moral judgment on what they believe is best for themselves, their families, and society. They understand that giving birth to unwanted children without the physical, emotional, or financial resources to provide them a good life can have broad-ranging negative impacts. Government shouldn’t dishonor their moral perspectives by imposing criminal laws derived from sectarian religious beliefs.

The authors of the U.S. Constitution enacted as their First Amendment the provision: “Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion...” Our nation was intended as a secular nation without the divine authority of a monarch or pope. Our laws were intended to be enacted as a product of discourse among “we the people” about our collective judgement of what serves the general welfare. Thus our constitution excludes decisions based on faith or divine authority. Faith-based decisions or claims of divine authority are not debatable because there is no observation from experience to measure their consequences or disprove their assertions.

When morals are based on human experience, there are many reasonable circumstances by which women may choose to abort:

1 Victims of rape and incest understandably resent the men who impregnated them by force, took advantage of their minor age or abused their family role.

2 Married women with children who do not have the resources to care for more children sensibly don’t wish to diminish the quality of life of the family by having additional children.

3 Women who used a failed birth control device don’t believe that a flawed contraceptive is justification for assuming the responsibility of raising children.

4 Minor children who get pregnant and face the fullness of their circumstance may decide that they don’t have the maturity to raise a family.

5 Women who don’t want to continue their pregnancy alone after being misled by their partner into thinking he was committed to parental responsibility but then abdicated that responsibility.

6 Women who discover that their fetuses are genetically predisposed to developing serious diseases, like Tay-Sachs, don’t want to put themselves and their family through long-term suffering.

7 Women with limited resources who want to pursue a career that will enable them to be productive and independent don’t want to have children at a time that will interfere with a fulfilling life of work.

For these and many other reasons, one-third of women in their reproductive years make the choice to abort.

Women who make the choice to abort because of their judgment of the consequences of pregnancy and raising a child based on their life experience are morally honorable. Humanists come to this position by making moral choices based on collective life experience, not supernatural dogma.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 16October 28, 2014 6:28 PM

[quote]but still accept that this does end a developing life.

A developing life is not the same thing as a life.

[quote]the hatred towards people who mourn the loss of innocent life.

They dont mourn shit. They are trying to control people to please their outdated dogma. The "pro-life" gang think nothing of executing people with a mental illness, think nothing of cutting aid and food stamps for disadvantage children, think nothing of waging an endless war on the most flimsy of reasons.

by Anonymousreply 17October 28, 2014 6:49 PM

The same people who are anti-choice are the same people that bitch about welfare. Guess what fewer abortions means. More welfare!

by Anonymousreply 18October 28, 2014 7:33 PM

[quote]Wait until one of you has a surrogate mother carrying your child and she decides to abort it.

It'll be a good start.

by Anonymousreply 19October 28, 2014 8:36 PM

It's a good ad but not one reader in 100 will read the whole thing.

by Anonymousreply 20October 29, 2014 3:09 AM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!