So, if I understand the cartoonist's viewpoint, defunding a government programme is essentially the same as stoning a woman to death?
Replies (31)
wow - how tasteless
-- Posted by ParkerDaws on Mon, Mar 21, 2011, at 9:50 AM
Rick wrote:
"looks more like an abortion statement to me..."
How so? It shows elephants in Muslim dress throwing stones at a pregnant woman and an apparent planned parenthood worker, and compares "Republican law" (which I assume does not refer to 'the laws of a republic') to Taliban Sharia law. No mention is made of abrotion, it is merely hinted. The main gist of the cartoon is to suggest that Republicans, by defunding a government programme, are one step away from beheading and stoning people.
So much for ending 'incendiary language', eh?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Mar 21, 2011, at 10:17 AM
I think this is an example of absurdity to illustrate how far the left will go in trying to make conservatives look like radical right wing extremists.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Mar 21, 2011, at 10:39 AM
It appears to me that the Republican Party is deliberately encouraging abortion. When you de-fund an organization who's primary objective is to propagate legal birth control, you are most probably increasing pregnancy, and thus the possibility of abortion. Not much logic needed to figure that out. Of course, they also do this knowing full well the Senate will put a halt to their little game. How about spending the time working on the economy? STUPID!
-- Posted by Wilbur Right on Mon, Mar 21, 2011, at 11:47 AM
wrcactus,
Not so. The measure only defunds organizations that provide abortions. Planned Parenthood would have the option to continue receiving funds if they stopped providing abortions. Or, they can continue providing abortions sans federal funding. It's what is called 'choice', which Planned Parenthood claims to favour.
The House has made a commitment to pass certain legislation. If the Senate does not follow suit, then the responsibility falls on their shoulders. To say they are stupid for doing what they promised, simply because the other house has the votes to block, is to favour capitulation. I, for one, prefer to see them fulfilling promises.
I like to think our Congresspersons are capable of thinking about more than one issue at a time. They are working on the economy, to the extent that they have the power to do so. Even so, they have other issues that should be addressed.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Mar 21, 2011, at 12:01 PM
"Or, they can continue providing abortions sans federal funding."
There are no federal funds going to provide abortions, how clear does that have to be?
Planned parenthood is exactly that, planning to avoid unwanted pregnancies, therefore reducing the possibilities and numbers of abortions.
Lighten up a bit, it's a cartoon, poking fun at Republican inconsistencies, and the women being "pebbled" hardly seem like they are in fear for their lives. You didn't seem to be upset when the cartoon poked fun at the President.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"I like to think our Congresspersons are capable of thinking about more than one issue at a time."
I agree with you. The President also has the same capability, i.e. jobs, economy, Japan, Libya, Brazil, and the NCAA tournament.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Mar 21, 2011, at 12:17 PM
Federal Funding frees up other funds to be used for abortions.
Surely you don't contend PP does not provision abortions.
If the purpose and goal of planned parenthood is for educational and health services as they claim, they could easily separate into two distinct organizations, one federally funded and one not.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Mar 21, 2011, at 1:13 PM
Once again:
Our government has no business funding planned parenthood...........or any other organization. If there is a need and a demand for the services of planned parenthood there will be private funding. Let the supporters put their money where their mouth is and put government's focus on its constitutional duties!
-- Posted by Robert* on Mon, Mar 21, 2011, at 1:25 PM
I don't see how anyone can view the "cartoon" as anything but in bad taste and absurd.
-- Posted by Acronym on Mon, Mar 21, 2011, at 1:32 PM
"Our government has no business funding planned parenthood."
If I were a political cartoonist, I suppose I could draw a parallel between Planned Parenthood's practices and those of genocidal regimes. However, since I'm not a political cartoonist, I'll refrain from doing so.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Mar 21, 2011, at 2:01 PM
So cartoons are in bad taste...if you don't agree with them?
What I find ironic is the people who usually complain about planned parentood have no problem with faith based abstonance programs.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Mon, Mar 21, 2011, at 2:45 PM
Abstinence doesn't kill babies.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Mar 21, 2011, at 3:26 PM
Thank you for proving my point.
People agree with content = appropriate
People who don't agree = tasteless
Political cartoons are no different than any other media. If you find them offensive, don't look at them.
I personally feel that pregnancy is too late. If you fall in/near the poverty line, I recommend a $5,000 credit for sterilization.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Mon, Mar 21, 2011, at 3:42 PM
Taste, as in beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Obviously we all have varying tastes or we would all be alike. That would make this life (and this forum) very boring. Having said that, I also think this cartoon is in bad taste. How can the two compare? There has not been an explantion of that by any that think it's ok.
I would agree that it falls under the category of "incindiary language", but then again, that's idiologically motivated most of the time. What is hate speech to one person may be perfectly acceptable to many others.
-- Posted by Knoblickian on Mon, Mar 21, 2011, at 4:10 PM
"Our government has no business funding planned parenthood...."
Unplanned Parenthood causes abortions. Planned parenthood prevents them. Different fund sources are irrelevant.
Perhaps if Republicans finally figure out that defunding Planned Parenthood will not only increase abortions but will also increase the number unplanned births to low income parents and eventually increase the number of Democrats, then they will double Planned Parenthood funding.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Mar 21, 2011, at 4:14 PM
My point is that, unless you a devout Hedonist, abstinence is almost universally accepted as both a moral and legitimate means of birth control. It is all-natural, and has been clinically proven to be 100% effective.
Other means of birth control are morally offensive to some, whereas others simply find it improper to for it, even if they have nothing against artificial birth control in principle. An even larger group finds after-the-fact birth control (i.e. abortion) to be morally offensive, even if they have no problem with other forms of artificial birth control.
Even some who have no problem with abortions, do not believe we, as a nation, have an obligation to pay for others to receive them. It has also been pointed out that the government, quite naturally, pays primarily for the abortions of the poor, which may qualify as a form of genocide, depending on which defintion of the that term is chosen.
Paying for abstinence programmes would fall under the guise of 'education'. The actual practice of abstinence itself comes at no cost to the taxpayers. Whereas the teaching of, and distribution of, condoms, birth-control pills, and 'morning after' abortificants comes at cost, and is seen by many as a providing tacit approval of the actions that leads to their usage.
But, we stray from the topic. You say that content with which people agree is 'appropriate', whereas content with which we do not is 'tasteless'. I don't think that is the case. There is much content wich which I agree that I do not deem 'appropriate', for a variety of reasons. Nor do I feel the need to discount as 'tasteless' all those things with which I disagree.
Given the recent brouhaha over Ms. Palin's use of 'incendiary language' which, according to her critics, resulted in the shootings that occurred under the Tucson Sun, I would have thought her critics would have found this cartoon equally offensive. Not so, apparently. I thought, given their silence, they may have overlooked it, so I linked to it on this thread, to bring it to their attention. Yet, they remain silent. I find that curious.
You will note that, in the heading, I merely dismissed it as 'silly'.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Mar 21, 2011, at 4:16 PM
commonsensematters wrote:
"Perhaps if Republicans finally figure out that defunding Planned Parenthood will not only increase abortions but will also increase the number unplanned births to low income parents and eventually increase the number of Democrats, then they will double Planned Parenthood funding."
So, you think Republicans should come out in favour of a programme of genocide against unborn
Democrats? I see now why you defended the cartoon.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Mar 21, 2011, at 4:19 PM
Shapley Hunter, who is going to pay for the newborn low income Democrats as most of them live in urban squalor unknown to the likes of you. I truly can't wait to see your comment as you are so knowledgable about how poor lazy Democrats in these areas have so much motivating them to pull themselves out of the gutter. Surely you must have lived in a City for quite some time to know so much about all the poor lazy Democrats there.
-- Posted by happypappies on Mon, Mar 21, 2011, at 4:56 PM
Happypappies wrote;
"Surely you must have lived in a City for quite some time to know so much about all the poor lazy Democrats there."
You'll have to refresh my memory. I'm not sure what I've said regarding 'poor lazy Democrats' in the cities.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Mar 21, 2011, at 5:00 PM
"So, you think Republicans should come out in favour of a programme of genocide against unborn?"
Absolutely not, I only pointed out that Republicans could find an advantage in reducing the number of unplanned births, while at the same time reducing the number of abortions.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Democrats? I see now why you defended the cartoon."
It is clearly not a matter of defending or not defending the cartoon. Get a grip, it is a cartoon.
My only contention is very straightforward, Planned Parenthood reduces abortions.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Mar 21, 2011, at 5:16 PM
"It is all-natural, and has been clinically proven to be 100% effective."
True
If they quit paying Democrat voter to have them most problems solved. Oops. I forgot that is part of their vote buying plans. They will never go for it.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Mar 21, 2011, at 6:33 PM
commonsensematters wrote:
"My only contention is very straightforward, Planned Parenthood reduces abortions."
No, your contention is very straightforward: Planned Parenthood reduces people. They perform abortions, so it is hard to say they reduce them. They promote wanton sexuality, and then provide the 'cure' should the birth control they provide fail. It's a sort of self-propagating arrangement, as I see it. They help to boost the demand for abortions and then claim credit for reducing them.
Margaret Sanger was a proponent of genocide. From the posts I read supporting her programme, it seems to me her view has not been diminished, it still bubbles there beneath the surface. The best defense that seems to be offered in Planned Parenthood's favour is that it kills the poor humanely. And it supposed to be the Republicans who hate them. Shame!
The best way to help the poor is to elevate them through industry. Killing them off just rubs some people the wrong way, even those who don't favour doling out welfare for the rest of their lives.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Mar 21, 2011, at 9:03 PM
Wouldn't it be quite a bit less expensive for government to pay for birth control measures, rather than for abortions?
Overheard a conversation fairly recently about a pregnant teenager ... one woman (appeared to be the girl's mother) saying if Medicaid had covered the cost of The Pill, the girl wouldn't have gotten pregnant. You should all be proud of me ... I didn't EVEN break in to suggest that not having sex, or not paying for a condom, might have been alternate solutions. But ... I WANTED to! ~grinning~
Trying to explain 'prevention' to abortion supporters is kind of like trying to explain 'choice' to the smoking-ban group ...
At any rate ... women/girls get pregnant, but seem to generally 'blame' something other than themselves for it (well, except many girls in this area who apparently and happily see it as an accomplishment of some sort). Hard to comprehend that mind-set ... or the attitude of those who seem to view it as an acceptable form of 'birth control,' and can't get their minds around the fact that pregnancy is in most cases preventable ... with prevention, there would be no need for abortion.
All that being said ... I'm glad my mother didn't have an abortion when she was 17!
-- Posted by gurusmom on Tue, Mar 22, 2011, at 12:14 AM
If Mother and Dad had provided some proper parenting, there would have been less chance of the situation arising.
As I have said before, it seems to be a badge of qualification these days to start off saying "Well I'm a single parent and .."
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Mar 22, 2011, at 12:49 AM
I don't think it is possible for me to care less about Planned Parenthood or faith based abstinence programs. Comparing just about anything to stoning women is in my opinion in bad taste, stupid etc.
As to not looking at them if you find them offensive, think about that. How are you going to know if it's offensive until you have already looked at it.
-- Posted by Acronym on Tue, Mar 22, 2011, at 5:05 AM
"...and can't get their minds around the fact that pregnancy is in most cases preventable ... with prevention, there would be no need for abortion."
Finally, another Planned Parenthood supporter that understands the concept.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Mar 22, 2011, at 5:26 AM
Commonsensematters wrote:
"Finally, another Planned Parenthood supporter that understands the concept."
We're all for prevention, but we disagree on how it should be done, and who should pay for it.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Mar 22, 2011, at 8:22 AM
Shapely,
Does abstinence work at preventing pregnancy? Absolutly. Does it work as a platform? Nope. Its like the just say no campaign.
To actually reduce abortions (those used for birth control), we must remove the stigma associated with pregnancy and celebrate the those who choose adoption.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Mar 22, 2011, at 8:57 AM
There are a lot of people who've successfully said 'no', both to drugs and to premarital sex. I would say it works as a platform, though not for all. The idea should not be scrapped because it is no entirely effective. If that was our criteria, the birth control initiative would have been scrapped long ago.
Planned parenthood claims on their website that 1 of every 3 women will have an abortion in their lifetime, which would clearly indicate that birth control as a platform has been ineffective. (I'm curious if that '1 in 3' number includes spontaneoud abortions (miscarriages), or simply divides the number of females by the number of abortions to achieve that statistic. I suspect it is the latter, if not both. I find it hard to believe that 33% of all women are having induced abortions. If so, then other forms of birth control are truly ineffective.
I've read that the majority of women who have abortions have more than one, though I don't have the source for that statistic at hand. If that is true, then clearly neither abstinence nor non-abortive birth control education has been effective with them. How can that be used as an argument against one method while being used as argument in favour of the other? To say that it proves teaching abstinence is not effective and shows why we need to teach alternative birth control methods is a fallacy - there is no reason to believe multiple-abortion recipients have been subjected to more education of one type than the other.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Mar 22, 2011, at 9:12 AM
I see I misspelled 'spontaneous'... drat!
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Mar 22, 2011, at 9:14 AM
Menu
http://www.semissourian.com/photos/14/45/55/1445551-L.jpg
So, if I understand the cartoonist's viewpoint, defunding a government programme is essentially the same as stoning a woman to death?
Replies (31)