Cartoon of the week

Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 5 months ago to Government
134 comments | Share | Flag

The drawing says it all. A Viable candidate for life is depicted but denied rights that something as common as an auto accident or not having it's brains sliced and diced as the head emerges depicts. Harking back to my Vietnam years it drum rolls in the background "Now who are the real baby killers?"

Happily the Courts agreed some years ago and stopped such barbaric acts limiting, which i agree fully with, abortion to the pre viability stage and turned their back on how to fit a prom dress as a reason to commit murder.

Fetus stage is roughly 2 trimesters or six months...Viable citizen with the right to be protected is somewhere in the third trimester. It's a medical decision and a human and civil rights decision in most cases.

Execution at that point requires lawyers, juries and the other trappings of a civilized society.

Her support of that alone should be Hillary 'Waddles' Clintonite's last gasp. What about the babies right to choose? What about the husband's right to choose?

Assuming Obama doesn't declare babies the subject of his 'suspicion of' version of our now defunct Bill of Rights.

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 4.
  • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    it's like the bumper sticker, "If You Can Read This,
    Thank A Teacher." . mine would say, "If You Can Read
    This, Thank Your Mother And A Teacher." -- j
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I have never taken a human life, but working in protective services, I have had to consider what it would mean. One of my instructors was a retired police officer. He told us that he also had never taken a life, but in his precinct was an officer who had five times. That man had no regrets. The other cops called him "Refrigerator" and did not socialize with him.

    For some people killing is not difficult. For most people, it is.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If it's this easy to control the conversation and steer it away from the maiin point think what the professional propagandists of the left are going to do with you.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    When the parasite has a voluntary host.

    When do other people as adults achieve the status you seek to bestow on an embryo?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Mike M.
    Looks as if you and the other Mike have riled up the pro abortion lobby in the Gulch. Based on my actual experience, here's how my wife and I decided to face the problem. For us personally, there is no question of abortion. The baby lives if we can help it. However, we will support no law prohibiting abortion. The choice is personal and let each woman, and man if there is one with her, decide for themselves. This is not the province of government, but the conscience of the people involved.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mdant 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It has nothing to do with religion. Normal contract have nothing to do with religion but you have a responsibility to live up to the contract. If you agreed to take the chance of being responsible for a human being living inside you, you can not back out if things work different than expected. Just like the other person in a contract has a right to hold you to your obligation, the child has a right to expect you to allow them to live after you agreed to take that chance.

    It is really disappointing that so many objectivist want to shun responsibility. That is what liberals always want to do...with all types of responsibility.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mdant 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Immoral???? Trying to be a good persona and save innocent lives is immoral? If someone tried to save your life would it be immoral?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mdant 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I was not trying to say there was some distinct other sect of objectivism with its own set of beliefs. However, no set of beliefs is ever settled are agreed to unless it is stale and dead as a set of ideas. Therefore any non-standard objectivist belief is what I would lump into the "non-traditional".

    All belief systems have to be open to disagreement or else progress is halted.

    And by the way...I am certain you will disagree but from the time I have spent on this website it has become very clear to me that Objectivism is a set of faith-based beliefs...just not the same ideas as what is typically considered faith based. It is very clear objectivism thinks it has answers that could only be had for certain if you knew things none of us know. None of us understand the universe and how we exist. I do agree with most of the objectivist points of view but I disagree with others. If I can not be allowed to try and convince objectivist that the standard view they have is wrong on some things is wrong, from a logical point of view, then that would mean objectivism is dead and can never grow.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mdant 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Explain how a woman can consent (which she did in the act of sex) to the possibility of being responsible for another human being, and then unilaterally decide she no longer wants to live up to the contract she entered. You can not separate responsibility from the argument.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mdant 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I do not understand your reply. What do you mean there is nothing to undo? There was sex wasn't there? That created another person. If you want to purport that the rights of the woman are superior to that of the human inside her, the only way I can see you even making a decent argument is if you can claim you are not the one that created the situation in the first place. For all practical purposes the woman entered a contract by having sex and understood that if pregnancy resulted, another human being would be living inside her. You can not unilaterally break a contract, especially when it means ending another person's life.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by minorwork 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Being as how the woman bears the load of reproduction, she bears the load of the world's definition of freedom. She becomes a slave to her incubating ability then where is the freedom to be found for the rest of us sweaty mens?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It's usually not required to repeat it over and over in every discussion of abortion.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The quote describes a basic freedom of any woman, not "the basic freedom of the world" -- something that Sanger had a lot of "difficulty" with as a Progressive.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There is no such "responsibility". There is nothing to undo. Whether or not a woman knowingly takes a risk, the risk is unwanted pregnancy and what is required to end it, not subjugation to imposed religious duties to sacrifice.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Even if "voluntary" the intrusive propagandizing is obnoxious. Trying to instill guilt over "selfish concerns" is immoral.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    A newborn baby is not a developing fetus. The change from before to after birth is obvious. Don't drop the context of the environment of biological dependency from parasitical to an independent entity and the enormous change in mental functioning being aware of the world and the beginning of mental perceptual processing.

    For the nature and source of rights see Ayn Rand's "Man's Rights" and "The Objectivist Ethics" in The Virtue of Selfishness. The concept of rights does not pertain to a fetus. For cells at conception there is nothing to even discuss about it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by minorwork 9 years, 5 months ago
    More pretend outrage for an organism that is so amoral that it rips its creator apart or even kills it. Then we give it the ability to speak and pose a question as if it is sentient too? Give me a break. Such ignoring of a mother but a living incubator having even less sovereignty to her own body's interests, mind, sentience and knowledge of her imminent death that there is no inkling to the pro-life crowd that they are fomenting a world dedicated to women's being subservient to the majority of those who would take a mob position to deprive her of her reproductive sovereign rights in favor of an amoral parasite.

    "The basic freedom of the world is woman's freedom. A free race cannot be born of slave mothers. A woman enchained cannot choose but give a measure of that bondage to her sons and daughters. No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her body. No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother." ~ Margaret Sanger
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo