Stanek Sunday funnies 5-27-12
Here were my top five favorite political cartoons for the week, starting with a great one by Lisa Benson at Townhall.com…
by Glenn Foden at Townhall.com…
by Chuck Asay at Townhall.com…
Liberal Signe Wilkinson at GoComics.com employs a common pro-abortion tactic, which is to attempt to detract from our focus – saving preborn babies from slaughter – to another issue, while also trying to put us on the defensive. Don’t let them throw you off-topic and take you down a rabbit trail. Feel free in comments to recommend good pro-life responses to this maneuver…
The most vulnerable of the vulnerable – preborn babies with minority and/or poor mothers – are primary targets of the abortion industry and Democrats. It is also they who push the overpopulation myth, which has resulted in the worldwide white population headed for extinction.
SO, this cartoon by liberal cartoonist Clay Jones at GoComics.com actually portrays the opposite of reality. It is liberals who are responsible for the dearth of Caucasians, and if liberals had their way, lots of those minority storks would be shot down…
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
The way to repulse the idea that you don’t care about the post-born is to work hard and effectively for a family allowance system that will place an automatic income floor on any family with a child as well as other measures to assist American children and ensure that as many as possible enjoy decent upbringings.
Family allowance is not welfare but an alternative to it. You lose welfare when you earn and only get it if your income is below a certain level. A family allowance automatically goes to the person with primary responsibility for a child and is unaffected by other sources of income.
We need to do more to support full-time homemakers AND help with pre-schools and day care centers.
There will be cries of “socialism” but post-born children will be well worth it.
A family allowance automatically goes to the person with primary responsibility for a child and is unaffected by other sources of income.
Other than in cases of death, there should always be TWO persons equally responsible and held accountable for the raising of a child. If someone isn’t willing to help raise the child, s/he sure should be financially contributing.
Any help for the post born?
You bet, Signe. Put the dad(s) in the cartoon.
I was sitting next to my dad before my daughter’s graduation ceremony yesterday and dad made a funny, “The last time I went to a graduation, the speaker talked about making sure to work hard and following your dreams but then the speaker added, If ya don’t want to do that, just ask the government what programs you can sign up for.”
You need to wake up to reality before you can ever follow your dreams.
Oh, I don’t know – it seems that many (if not all) the CPC’s and PRC’s that I know of and work with and vounteer for (you know – “volunteer” – as in “does not cost the taxpayer any gov’t funds”) all seem to focus JUST as much on the post born when helping the people who find out they are parents and decide to STAY parents.
Housing, clothng, job training if necessary, and learning how to properly care for (bathe, feed, etc.) the child they already have (but has not yet been born) – these are all the focus to help the people who discover they are ALREADY parents decide to keep their child. This along with friendship and support of vounteers and peers is what I see, quite a bit.
You’d think that once someone gets counseling or advice on not ending the life insdie them that these people are thrown outside and left on their own, at least that is the way it gets asked/protrayed. I have not seen anything even close. Even the Choose Life license plates we have in MA raise funds specifically to help women who make the choice of keeping a child.
We need better PR. Of course, if we’re waiting on the MSM, then the other cartoon you have posted lets us know the odds of that happening…
Praxedes says:
May 27, 2012 at 11:44 am
A family allowance automatically goes to the person with primary responsibility for a child and is unaffected by other sources of income.
Other than in cases of death, there should always be TWO persons equally responsible and held accountable for the raising of a child. If someone isn’t willing to help raise the child, s/he sure should be financially contributing.
(Denise) The government’s child allowance is a minimum. No child is ever lacking the necessities because his or her father is a rapist who didn’t get caught or his or her father can’t be found for other reasons or his or her father is just not earning much money.
By all means, add what a father can reasonably provide on top of the family allowance whenever feasible.
My bad, Denise.
In addition to death, I should have added if a parent can’t be found to be held accountable. And point out that people need to be much more careful who they are willing to have intercourse with.
Praxedes says:
May 27, 2012 at 12:59 pm
My bad, Denise.
In addition to death, I should have added if a parent can’t be found to be held accountable. And point out that people need to be much more careful who they are willing to have intercourse with.
(Denise) I would like to see less sexual intercourse, particularly promiscuous sexual intercourse.
“worldwide white population headed for extinction“
Am I the only one who finds the website linked there to be kind of racist?
JDC, I found it enlightening and an indictment of the Left, hence the link… :)
@JDC: Nope, I’m reading it now and it’s…kind of bizarre. That sentence where he goes on about how all these folks who “look white” but don’t really count…eurgh. I don’t disagree with any of the facts, but the alarmist presentation is pretty skeevy.
As an aside, I’m not even sure the author’s main concern, the extinction of all white persons, is even possible. (Leaving aside, for the moment, the whole “Why is this even a thing?” portion of the equation.) Even if all white persons “went extinct” (???) one way or another for some period of time, the genes for white skin would still be present in the human population and would eventually be expressed in some future generation of children, wouldn’t they? (Genetics is not my area of expertise, but this idea that there will never ever be any more white people ever does not seem right to me.)
JDC and Alice, I agree. While most of the article just reads as if he is using the slightly ambigious ‘white’ in place of the longer ‘traditional 1st world countries’ (or ‘developed country’s native population’ or ‘europe and european based countries plus Japan’) he has a few scattered sentences and one small paragraph that make it pretty clear he is only refering to ‘pure’ anglo-saxon based ‘whites’. Yeah…I call racists. The problem he speaks of, while ultimately valid (the ‘white’ world is below replacement) is far more a cultural problem (America as a whole is below replacement, Japan as a whole is below replacememnt, France, the UK, Russia etc etc etc) than a ‘skin tone’ problem.
Oh, and genetically speaking you certainly could ‘breed out’ white skin, but to do so you’d also loose middle browns. You’d need a population of only the darkest black to permanently do that. Likewise, you could breed out black, but only by also getting rid of all browns. The (much simplified genetics look like this: (B=dark, b=light) so starting with brown skin marries brown skin you’d get (4 kid pundit square) BB (which would be all black and would only conceivable produce all black offspring) Bb, Bb (which would be brown and continue to produce all shades), and bb (which would be white and would only conceivable produce all white offspring). So as long as there are some ‘mixed’ you’ll always get the full spectrum. Obviously this is simplified, in reality it like bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB so there is a huge range in ‘colors’, but still, it is possible to breed a population until only dominant or only recessive genes are left. And there are certainly population groups in existance today which, among their native population, have hit that genetic bottleneck and, without outside genes being reintroduced, would never see a significant variation in skin tone. The same can be said of blonde or black hair or lightest blue or darkest-brown eyes. And, of course, a person’s skin tone makes as much difference as their hair color, we’re all equally human, it’s just shuffling of recessive and dominant genes.
It is quite possible that pale skin will be bred out as racial groups amalgamate and people all become some shade or another of brown. That is no tragedy. The system is inherently dynamic and changes as we mix.
At any rate, I believe a “pro-life” position must address financial strain. A disproportionate number of women seeking abortions are divorced or single women in their early or mid-20s who are already raising care of a child or children. They feel like they’ve got their hands feel and are financially strained. They may feel that they’re not doing the best job possible of raising the children they are already raising.
They are fearful that having another baby will lead to a house filled with chaos or that they just won’t be able to pay their bills.
I’m all for encouraging marriage among this group but we’ve also got to put in an income floor so at least part of the dilemma will be addressed.
I’m not sure how to help them with the day to day strain of taking care of another baby when they’re already afraid they’re not doing well with the ones already born.
I must add that a pro-life concern must also be with preventing pregnancies that won’t be carried to term. Eleanor Cooney’s fetus was doomed at the moment of conception regardless of the law. It was illegal when she first conceived. There are probably similar cases.
It was necessary to prevent that conception. Had she been on the Pill, Norplant, or Depo-Provera, an abortion might have been prevented.
She engaged in sex impulsively. She wasn’t coerced or drunk and has written, “There was nothing even interesting sordid about the sex. I just got stupid for fifteen minutes.” There wasn’t anything long about it either!
It’s possible if girls and boys weren’t alone together, that could also be prevented.
Question: Do I have any moral, ethical, or cultural obligation to preserve my ethnicity?
If I do then I will have to find someway to determine what it is.
Unlike Elizabeth ‘crazyho knotawunovus’ Warren, I am proveably Cherokee, with a smattering of Jew and caucasian european thrown in the mix. My chilren are 1/2 Japanese plus my smorgasborg of dna.
Ken the Birther, your question strikes me as mostly rhetorical but I wanted to answer because I feel strongly that hang ups about culture and ethnicity drive racism (which is a studip word, since ‘race’ is purely a social construct that has no meaning whatsoever, what people really mean is ‘culturalism’). I would say absolutely not. ‘Ethnicity’ is a cultural concept with very little real meaning. The only real meaning it has is to say ‘a group of people who generally agree about life’s issues’. That’s all a culture is. Ethnicity is just the visual representation of that culture, presenting itself because cultures tend to breed within themselves. Ethnicities are very fluid as cultures change and interact with each other. A closed and stable ethnicity/culture is pretty rare, and has been throughout history (although certainly they were somewhat more stable in times past with limited travel abilities). I would say it is important to a functioning society that member of that culture (regardless of their native ethnicity(ies)) work together to keep that culture and thus society strong, but ultimately even that is more of a concept to protect stable governments (which thus protect citizens) than anything else.
Wait, so is Romney not pro-life?
Shouldn’t we clean out the closet before he’s nominated as the Republican candidate?
Otherwise we are waiting for the Obama team to destroy the pro-life majority vote by dragging out Romeny’s trash in the middle of the September general election.
If there’s a chance the vote will be divided, we must consolidate by picking Ron Paul.
His record is clear on the life issue.
Pro-life democrats will vote republican if Ron Paul is on the ticket.
Not to tell you what to do, but..
If your a registered California voter, vote in the Republican Primary June 5th for Ron Paul.
Even if you don’t think he has a chance, he certainly deserves one considering his record.
Better not wait for the pro-abortion movement to reveal this to voters…
http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2011/06/my-pro-life-pledge
It appears SBA recanted
But wait.. there’s hope!
http://imwithlucas.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/blue-republicans-and-ron-paul/
When Tony Auth left the Philadelphia Inquirer and was somewhat replaced by Signe Wilkinson of the Philadelphia Daily News it was no great improvement. What a pathetic cartoon. That mother ought to be grateful her son is coughing, “Hack. Hack. Hack.” rather than some abortionist having gone “Hack! Hack! Hack!”
It’s especially galling that she shares the same birth name of my mother and grandmother. :(
And that link was an unfortunate one. It recommends books of poetry in praise of Hitler! There are many other articles on this subject, but “White Power!” is just as obnoxious as “Black Power!”
I know Jill was hoping we wouldn’t veer off on a rabbit trail. Better luck next week! :)
It was asked how to respond to Signe. Nine out of ten times this type of question, the “what have pro-lifers done for me lately” question is one that does not want an answer as it is gratuitous. Those asking it usually don’t stick around long enough to engage in any kind of serious conversation.
However, for the one in ten that actually feels confident enough in their position to defend it without running away the answer is that the born and unborn are of equal value. Signe presents a false choice based upon the illogical premise that one cannot hold life sacred in all of its stages, from conception until natural death. We pro-lifers are witnessing to the right to life of the unborn because it is self- evident that an unborn child is a child. Interestingly Signe’s portrayal of the pregnant mom assumes the pregnancy is going to result in a sibling to the coughing kid, thus lending a tacit recognition to what is self-evident even to choicers .
That a majority of Supreme Court justices issued what is considered by legal scholars across the ideological spectrum to be bad law does not mean we cannot work to change it and to offer assistance to those who will be or have been impacted by it in a negative way.
If I could draw worth a damn, I’d respond to Signe’s tired question with something like this:
A pregnant woman walking toward an abortion clinic, saying “I have no choice, I just can’t afford to have a baby right now.” Behind her is a Crisis Pregnancy Center with volunteers handing out information and a big sign above it reading “FREE diapers, food, housing, etc.”
Denise, the most prominent pro-life public policy organization (Americans United for Life) went as far as saying that they would support generous welfare programs if there was a substantial peer-reviewed body of evidence showing that these actually reduce abortion rates. Is there? National Right to Life even opposed the GOP’s welfare reform (which resulted in more conservative policies) in the 1990s because they thought that it would increase the number of abortions (as it turns out, it didn’t).
Regarding free contraception, it’s not like women have a hard time getting it in New York City. Yet the abortion rate there is probably the highest in the U.S, twice the national average. If someone chooses to engage in sex “impulsively”, without considering any of the consequences (as in the anecdote you cited), it would seem that access to birth control wouldn’t have any effect on the outcome.
Navi, the fact that sex can be impulsive is why I think as soon as girls reach puberty there should at least be discussion on getting them on the Pill, Depo-Provera or Norplant. That is the ONLY thing that will prevent some from getting pregnant and therefore aborting.
Of course, when I suggest this people think I want young girls to immediately engage in partnered sex. I don’t!!!! The best sexual release for them is masturbation.
I want to take pregnancy off the table so they can focus on other things.
Depo-Provera – the progestins are not reliable in stopping ovulation and therefore operate oftentimes by post fertilization mechanisms. (Abortifacient).
Norplant – off the market in the U.S. and it is another progestin with similar liabilities.
The progestins are associated with marked weight gain, which further reduces their effectiveness. They are also associated with increased susceptibility to STDs and osteoporosis.
When a woman becomes pregnant on these forms of birth control, there is not a way to prevent the embryo/fetus from being exposed to the hormones. This can lead to untoward effects on the developing human, which can include genital malformations.
Well, about half of all abortions are done on women who have already had at least one. It’s common knowledge that abortion providers normally set women up with some form of reversible birth control afterwards. If pushing this on women who are most likely to have an abortion generally doesn’t work, I find it difficult to fathom that pushing it on 13 year-olds would be effective.
I’d be interested in seeing a study showing that teaching kids how to masturbate curbs teen sexual activity. Intuitively, it sounds a bit too good to be true. But if it really was that easy, we could solve a lot of problems…