Stanek Sunday funnies, “40th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade” edition
Political cartoonists from both sides of the abortion debate had colorful thoughts on the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Vote for your favorite in the poll at the bottom of the post.
We begin with liberal Stuart Carlson at GoComics.com…
We move on to liberal vs. conservative on gun rights vs. abortion rights, first by Joel Pett at GoComics.com…
then by Toby Toons…
liberal Jim Morin at GoComics.com is obviously unaware that safe treatment of aborting mothers has not followed change of location…
finally, in memoriam, by Glenn McCoy at Townhall.com…
[polldaddy poll=6858039]
Jan.27, 2013 11:42 am |
Cartoons |
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.
[Something really political].
The difference between access to guns and access to elective abortion is the second ammendment explecitly recognizes the citizens right to own and carry guns and it is the only ammendment to constitution which states a purpose.
“At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions [The Dred Scott decision] the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”
“This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.”
From Abraham Lincoln’s first innaugural address.
Slavery was an unresolved issue for ‘four score and seven years’ that festered until a house divided to the point where it was only settled by the citizens ‘revolutionary right’ to an un-civil war.
The ’eminent tribunal’ and it’s Roe v Wade decision did not and has not, in deed it cannot end the dispute over the humanity of the prenatal child.
After more than 40 years the issue of prenatal homicide and infanticide are not yet settled. In deed the proponents hysterically claim it is so unsettled they are losing the battle to keep the barbarism ‘legal’.
Hi Ken,
Oh heaven help us, now the Dear Leader is concerned about “violence” in sports and if he had a son he isn’t sure he would want him to play.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/president-obama-had-a-son-d-think-long-hard-150248874–nfl.html
Now how long before he begins issuing Executive Orders on college football?
All this week’s cartoons just made me said. :(
I think #3 was the most effective at making a point, so I voted for it as my favourite.
“[Something really political].”
LOL :)
Sorry Ken,
My computer went black on me again, sometimes happens when I try to link and screws things up. I hope this works.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/president-obama-had-a-son-d-think-long-hard-150248874–nfl.html
Looks like you will just have to google “Obama concerned about violence in sports”. Link still doesn’t work.
Bah, Stewart Carlson blew it. His cartoon could have been so much more powerful if instead of a normal two-tier cake he had drawn one of those red velvet baby cakes. And instead of wanting to blow out the candles, the woman should have held a knife and been wanting to cut the cake. But I guess that visual would be a little too close to the true violence of abortion, so we get this insipid cartoon instead.
How come, when it seems like there are actual large pieces of abortion news in the media, and I come to this site, those things are rarely covered. Nothing no St. Thomas More Hospital? Or did I just miss an earlier story?
St. Thomas More hospital isn’t “abortion news”. It’s a wrongful death case. Most of the headlines I’ve seen are inaccurate. CHI isn’t arguing that fetuses aren’t persons. They are arguing that fetuses aren’t persons under CO law. And it seems so far, sadly, that they are right.
According to this site, 500000 people marching in Washington D.C. is apparently more newsworthy than some silly hospital’s alleged hypocrisy. Who would have guessed?
Navi – the march is more important.
But in the world of the internet, it is possible to have more than one story a day – it isn’t an either/or type of thing.
Not a big deal – this site can choose to cover whatever it wants – it simply is being covered in a lot of places, and it is being linked heavily to the abortion debate (contrary to what Lrning is saying).
Just out of interest Ex, do you have an opinion you would like to share about that story or is your only interest in it pointing out this site’s lack of coverage?
JDC. I wouldn’t count on it.
Ex-RINO, it has come up on other threads and you missed it.
The Tomb of the unknown baby was my favorite cartoon. It was a fitting cartoon since so many people visited memorials this past week to remember and mourn the babies that have been lost to abortion.
truth – you wouldn’t count on an opinion? JDC gave an either or question – you wouldn’t count on the either or the or? Very odd comment.
it is being linked heavily to the abortion debate
Of course it is, because it’s being reported (inaccurately) that “a Catholic hospital says fetuses aren’t persons!!!!11!1″
JDC – I found this article interesting on it:
http://www.religionnews.com/2013/01/25/catholic-hospital-under-fire-for-saying-fetuses-arent-people/
I will say, if an organization claims that their beliefs are so strong that they can’t be forced by the government to ever come close to crossing the lines on those beliefs, then argues against their own beliefs when it is monetarily convenient for them. I don’t know. Tough to say that covering contraception would be this huge moral outrage when, at least in this case, they’ll jump against their own beliefs if it helps their pocketbooks.
I understand why they are doing it, and if you look at the law of the land above all else, it makes sense to run with that logic.
Lrning -
You’ll have to fill me in then – everything I’ve read says that in this case, the hospital is claiming that wrongful death doesn’t apply to the babies because they weren’t really people. I haven’t read any actual case documents though. What’s the true story then?
#3 is spooky. Conservatives behind Nazis?
Ex:
Sigh. For your sake and for Hal’s the other day (different thread) here is the reality about the Saint Thomas More Hospital situation.
Catholics do not walk lock-step under the spell of the pope. That may come as a shock to you. It may also come as a shock that no Catholic is perfect, but thank you very much nonetheless. Having said that I am not privileged to know every detail of the lawsuit except to say that Colorado law does not recognize fetuses as humans and under Colorado law the lawyers representing the hospital and their insurers have prevailed on that basis…at whose direction I do not know.
Usually there are attempts to settle before going to trial. Do we know the details of such, and is it possible that the plaintiff’s attorneys recommended against a settlement on the basis that more was potentially to be gained by going to court? There are some things the law permits and defines that are opposed to Church teachings but are settled within the dictates of the law.
In usual fashion the low IQ moralists who control and consume most of the main stream media have jumped on this situation as though somehow the Church is hypocritical, when actually the Church has not changed its position one iota. The Colorado Bishops are reviewing the case and have issued a strong statement reiterating Church teachings on the sanctity of life. The bishops said that they would carry out a “full review of this litigation and of the policies and practices … to ensure fidelity and faithful witness to the teachings of the Catholic Church.”
Even you have to admit, ex, that under the circumstances even the Bishops cannot be everywhere at every moment to guide every Catholic in every action. After a rational and non-hysterical review of the facts I am confident the Bishops will take the appropriate actions.
http://www.courts.state.co.us/Media/Opinion_Docs/07CV522%20Summary%20Judgment%20in%20favor%20of%20Defendants.pdf
You see no difference in being a person and being a person as recognized by law? If they were the same, abortion would be illegal. That link includes many of the precedents that show CO law doesn’t consider a fetus to be a “person”. I hope this tragic case makes it all the way to the Supreme Court and they finally get the opportunity to rule that our laws must consider fetuses to be persons.
Jerry – so you are saying that after full review, you think the Bishops will steer the reasoning of the lawyers?
The Bishops have no authority over the lawyers. They might not have any authority over the hospital either (depends on how things are set up there). But they can strip the hospital of it’s Catholic identity if they feel the situation warrants it.
Lrning –
All I’m saying is that it seems to me then, when people freak out that Obama shed tears over the CT children, and people here said he doesn’t cry over aborted children – he could just say “well, legally those aborted children aren’t people”, and that would suffice with, well, at least you it appears.
I’m really actually not trying to pick a fight today – I’m going to logon and do a little work here soon – I’m just saying that it seems to me, if the catholic organizations are going to draw their moral lines in the sand, that they should abide by those laws whether or not money is on the line. No? Or am I simply missing the point, and morality steps aside when a law is involved?
legally those aborted children aren’t people
Sadly, if Obama were to say that aborted children are not legally persons, he would be correct.
Why would a back alley abortionist wear button saying “Repeal Roe”? Roe gave back alley abortionists all the cover they need to continue their dirty work. Roe overturned all state laws that protected women from these predators.
Q: What is the difference between a back alley abortionist and a legal abortionist?
A: A yellow pages ad.
Why doesn’t the church just use this case as a pretense for proving the personhood of the unborn?
“Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.”
Ex-RINO, are you saying that all people should be held to different legal standards based upon their morals? Or are you just saying catholics in particular should be held to different legal standards because they have a higher moral standard then others?
xalisae says:
Why doesn’t the church just use this case as a pretense for proving the personhood of the unborn?
It would be cruel to use this sad and tragic situation as a pretense, but I sincerely hope that the hospital ultimately loses it’s case with the end result being that the unborn are considered persons.
“Catholics do not walk lock-step under the spell of the pope. That may come as a shock to you.”
Tell it to the Real Catholics™ here.
Hi Lrning,
Great point. Heck, business has never been better. No need to worry about such trivialities as prison terms for mutilating and killing women. That back alley entrance reminds me of the entrance to Carhart’s Nebraska clinic. Is it just me or does the guy in the cartoon bear a striking resemblence to Kermit Gosnell?
Joan, have you ever heard of free will? Those of us who actually choose to follow the faith we profess have it, just as those who choose to deny certain tenets of the faith they profess have it.
I CHOOSE to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church of my own free will. Some people choose not to.
Seriously, what is hard to understand about that?
BebeLyssious ( Alyssa C. ) says:
January 27, 2013 at 5:23 pm
#3 is spooky. Conservatives behind Nazis?
I do believe that the cartoonist is reminding us that common-sense folks volunteered to take arms and then defeated the Nazis. Others won independence from empires and defended their own homes. The overwhelming majority of gun-owners do no harm and sometimes much good with their guns. We especially honor those who carried guns into battle and risked taking bullets from fascists.
On the other hand, the same folks who fear guns (because “guns kill people”) tend to support the retail slaughter of little people. This is the huge hypocrisy that the cartoon seeks to uncover.