Political cartoonists continued to cover abortion this week. There was so much fodder, between Kermit Gosnell, Barack Obama, and Planned Parenthood. Vote for your favorite in the poll at the bottom of the post.
by Glenn McCoy at GoComics..com…
by Gary Varvel at IndyStar.com…
a twofer by Glenn Foden at Fodentoons…
by Rick McGee at Cagle.com…
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
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.
This is unfair! How are we supposed to choose a favorite among this line-up? They are all spot on!
The “terrorism” entry could have been expanded to an additional frame showing a Planned Parenthood logo and the number of abortions they perform on an average day.
Were any of these published in mainstream media..well ,I am sure not #3 ..sure wish we could plaster them everywhere.
Definitely the last one.
My favorite political cartoon is a write-in by Jack Ohman of the Sacramento Bee, the one about Rick Perry and Texas business is booming. It’s no more offensive than the Tennessee state senator who joked about the assault pressure cooker.
Most of you know that state laws against fetal homicide have come about (some with the intent of overturning abortion laws); however, in all fetal homicide laws, there is an abortion exclusion or an affirmative defense of abortion. Do you know what that is really saying? That the fetal homicide law really does not protect the fetus; rather, it protects the WOMAN as to her choice with what to do with a pregnancy. Thus, if she wants to give birth, it’s homicide; if she wants to have an abortion, it’s not.
Some of you may disagree, but think about it objectively.
All very good but I voted for number 4 because elective abortion is terrorism and I’m glad to see it described as such.
Proudly anti-‘CHOICE’
Victor, elective abortion is not terrorism. It doesn’t come close to fitting the definition of terrorism. But some people hear voices, too.
Merit – even the fetal homicide laws enacted by legislatures that ultimately would want to overturn abortion don’t actually think the fetal homicide law will overturn abortion. At most it’s an attempt to bring awareness to the fact that two lives are at stake. That’s what gets people thinking every time there’s a prosecution for a fetal homicide. Do you really subscribe to the completely anti-science view (pretty much the most anti-science view among the pro-abortion crowd) that a woman’s whim determines whether the unborn child is a human life? That two women sitting next to each other 4 months pregnant – one is carrying a human life b/c she wants it. And the other is carrying a non-human life b/c she just wills it to be so? You should take your own advice and think about it objectively.
Merit,
Thinking about it objectively means that whether or not the abortion was elective or forced, it doesn’t make any real sense to make distinctions in this situation: An in-uteral human being is still a human being whether the mother in question wants to give birth or not. Objective fact is human sperm coming together with human egg (human sperm + human egg) can’t equal anything but a human being (in mathematical formula terms: human sperm + human egg = human being).
Last I checked human sperm and human egg never equaled any other being except human.
But to say it’s only infanticide in cases of NON-elective abortion doesn’t make any sense. Suddenly the in-uteral human being has human persona, but it doesn’t unless the mother decides it does? How is THAT objective at all? It has no logical sense.
As I’ve said before (and I read this in a book) “Calling a rock a cat doesn’t change the objective fact that the rock is, in fact, a rock and not a cat.”
You can sit there and say “oh it’s only human life if the mother decides not to have an abortion” but does that really change the objective identity of a joined human sperm and human egg that have already started the human development process? I mean how does something go from NOT being a human being to suddenly being a human being when human egg and sperm have already joined?
Last night Huckabee had on one of the few reporters covering this trial. The reporter stated that as governor of Pennsylvania, PC Republican Tom Ridge suspended any and all inspections of abortion clinics. Apparently these mills ran on a shoestring budget and would have been forced to close. Oh? So the governor acknowledged these places may not have been, well, quite up to standard? The governor apparently feared women would be denied access to abortion if these clinics were forced to close.
Let’s see, the governor is acknowledging the mills may wll be substandard, but keep them open anyway. I wonder if he applied the same critieria to kennels and veterinarian offices. We certainly don’t want to inconvenience pet owners, so suspend all licensing and inspection of kennels and vet offices. Apparently in PC world, women aren’t as important as the family dog.
The reporter said it was unfortunate that Ridge couldn’t sit in the courtroom to view the result of his decision.
“terrorism”: “1. systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal”
That one is from an online dictionary
“The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets”
That one is from the CIA
Abortion = terrorism