Abortion.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Spock

If one can't take cartoons for cartoons, one may need to reassess ones thinking.

That's what I was referring to when I said, "you're telling me to take cartoons as cartoons".

I can see humor in BOTH sides' cartoons. And I can see the point that BOTH sides' cartoons are trying to make. And I can see how BOTH sides would take offence at BOTH sides' cartoons.

But you seem to think that the cartoons from "your side" are MERELY funny, and not offensive. Can't you see how it would be offensive to me to be told I have a closed mind? It doesn't even matter if you think it's true or not - the point is, can you see how it's offensive? As I said, I think there is definitely some truth in the cartoons I posted, but I can also see how it would offend people who are not on "my side" on this issue.

I'm trying to work this out and express my thoughts here, but basically it seems like people who have posted cartoons against "my side" say they're merely funny, but when they are posted against, they don't see the humor.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

(for those who haven't been on Entmoot in the last few days, I'm doing this to try to illustrate a point. People have been posting cartoons lately that knock some of my viewpoints, and the general feeling seems to have been "hey, they're cartoons, lighten up and laugh!" But to me, an insult is an insult, no matter if it's spoken straight to your face or delivered in an indirect (and imo, rather cowardly) manner.)

So am I too touchy about this? It's just that so far, the only cartoons have been against typically conservative/religious positions, and the people posting them have said "everything's cool, they're just cartoons!" - but they haven't been on the receiving end yet.

I just think that things can really escalate fast when we start doing that. I love humor, but not derogatory humor.

I'm really in a quandry here and am trying to work these thoughts out in my posts - what do you guys think? I just don't know ... but it sure feels wrong to me.

I'm going to say probably the most annoying thing I could possibly say at this point:

Take a chill pill on the cartoons, ma'am.

However I will point out that I'm kinda joking and I can totally see your point of view. I find the gratuitous posting of links to cartoons annoying on a number of levels:
- it clogs up bandwidth
- it visually dominates threads and mashes up the CSS
- most of them are keech

As a one-time cartoonist myself, I will say a few things in defence of the art form, however. A good cartoon can say in a picture what can't be said in a bunch of words, and you can get a message across very effectively.

So anyway, there are probably too many of them around on these threads but they have their place. I see you posted links to your cartoons, which strikes me as a good solution. Then we can decide for ourselves if we want to look at them.

Finally, I'm afraid I have to say, from an unbiased, formerly-semi-professional perspective, those pro-life cartoons were dire.

Since I have no cartoon to post a link to I have no contribution to make at this time which is actually on-topic.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Take a chill pill on the cartoons, ma'am.

That is definitely one option I"m considering.

IT just seems so unfair, tho, that my positions are open-season for cartoon humor and the points that cartoons are very good at making, and positions that I am against are NOT.

A good cartoon can say in a picture what can't be said in a bunch of words, and you can get a message across very effectively.

Absolutely! They're very powerful. They are not JUST "for a little laugh".

Finally, I'm afraid I have to say, from an unbiased, formerly-semi-professional perspective, those pro-life cartoons were dire.

Do you mean artistically? That may be, but I think they have excellent points to ponder.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

IT just seems so unfair, tho, that my positions are open-season for cartoon humor and the points that cartoons are very good at making, and positions that I am against are NOT.

No one has ever said you couldn't or shouldn't post a cartoon. "Take a chill is good advice." You seem to think no one has a right to post anything that reflects other than your own narrow view. Narrow in that it is yours exclusively because you posted it, not in any other sense.
Everyone has a view point and everyone is entitled to share it in the effort of enlightenment or in my case humor to break the tension of preaching to the members.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

They're very powerful. They are not JUST "for a little laugh".
? That may be, but I think they have excellent points to ponder.

So if they have excellent points then they are ok, providing they are YOUR excellent points.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Finally, I'm afraid I have to say, from an unbiased, formerly-semi-professional perspective, those pro-life cartoons were dire.
.

Main Entry: dire
Pronunciation: 'dIr
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): dir·er; dir·est
Etymology: Latin dirus; akin to Greek deinos terrifying, Sanskrit dvesti he hates
1 a : exciting horror <dire suffering> b : DISMAL, OPPRESSIVE <dire days>
2 : warning of disaster <a dire forecast>
3 a : desperately urgent <dire need> b : EXTREME <dire poverty>
- dire·ly adverb
- dire·ness noun

I think the usage of that particular word is not applicable to the post. It isn't as though they predicted the end of the world in the next few moments.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Do you mean artistically? That may be, but I think they have excellent points to ponder.

Artistically in that they're quite wordy and clumsy. They make a point, but with no subtlety IMO. In fact, I would say they are more like propaganda than cartoons.

Of course, it is entirely possible, and indeed likely, that similarly bad cartoons would exist putting forward the pro-choice position.

And I do have sympathy with your position on this, though I don't agree on abortion.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Spock

I think the usage of that particular word is not applicable to the post. It isn't as though they predicted the end of the world in the next few moments.

[Spock]

oh, I see you think they did

[Count Comfect]

As regards cartoons, I think this thread is not a good place for them. On either side. Any time you have a discussion where one or more sides believe the other side(s)' beliefs to be akin to murder is somewhere cartoons, unless spectacularly well done (and certainly no one's cartoons here can claim that prestige, no matter which side they're from) have no chance of being anything but offensive.

On topic, although I've been trying to avoid actually being on this topic since it can suck you in like quicksand (although faster, since quicksand is, ironically, slow. The quick means "alive"), I do not believe that doctors should have to do abortions, or that women should have to have abortions. That said, I think abortion should be safe, legal, and available. And if a doctor does not want to do an abortion, I do think he or she should be required to refer a woman to another doctor within a reasonable distance (both spacially and temporally) who will give her an abortion.

Although I would prefer if there were never a reason to do a single one.

[The Gaffer]

OK, here's another thing about posting cartoons:

It might be taken as slightly disrespectful on account of not engaging with a person's argument but instead resorting to stereotyping. And if it's one-sided it might justifiably cause a bit of frustration.

So anyway.[/QUOTE]
suggestion: delete the cartoon, it has nothing to do with the subject topic. You can

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Are you saying that we should have known that Pol Pot would have turned out that way so he should have been aborted?

Im saying if you are going to use useless single incident examples as the logic in your argument against abortion (you might be killing the next Bach!!) then you better be prepared to deal with the opposite end of the spectrum. I think its a largely disingenuous tactic that chooses to ignore basic statistics in an effort to grab attention.

If there comes to be a strong scientific consensus, would you support the bill?

Then I might support a bipartisan effort to REWRITE the bill. But right now its basically being used as a tool by far right extremists.

Yes. Would you?

Of course. You would do this even if they could make sure it felt no pain no matter what point in the development it was?

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

you know... that's a great visualisation of spock's humour!

(and spock; that IS a compliment!)

edit: Vic's humour and the glasses go with the thesauras stuff!

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

IR, when you perfect the device that allows the determination of a person's actions prior to birth, then you might could argue that such determinations could be used to pre-emptively abort the really bad actors on the basis of deserved pro-active justification.

You are making my point here. Until you know that every aborted fetus was actually going to wind up a Bach or a Louis Armstrong then you cant really use this as an argument AGAINST abortion. And name dropping popular well known individuals is just an old tactic used by anti-abortionists to grab attention and spook people. So I figured Id call it out as such before someone else did.

And, what standards do you apply to state that a child/person you are counseling would have been better off dead?

If a child grows up in a nightmarish environment that ends up in their abuse and death were they better off living? Tortured and twisted for 8 or 10 or 12 years of their life and then left to die anyway because we cant even take care of the social work load we have already? This happens every day.

What standards do you apply to state that my observation of first world poverty beats third-world poverty hands down?

Try again. You are the one that stated american poor are "extremely well taken care of". I just called you on that error. Do you actually support that statement? That every single american ever born has been well off enough never to suffer miserably and wind up abused and/or dead or worse: so twisted as to cause significant harm to others over the course of their lives? You can really categorically state that in your argument against abortion?

Is life really about material status or is it relationships?

And who better to determine the impact of either issue? The pregnant person or the state?

[inked]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

You are making my point here. Until you know that every aborted fetus was actually going to wind up a Bach or a Louis Armstrong then you cant really use this as an argument AGAINST abortion. And name dropping popular well known individuals is just an old tactic used by anti-abortionists to grab attention and spook people. So I figured Id call it out as such before someone else did.

This passes for argument or what? The failure of every individual to be Bach would indict most of the world's population. Of course killing everyone before birth would solve that particular problem as no one would be anyone.



[QUOTE=Insidious Rex] If a child grows up in a nightmarish environment that ends up in their abuse and death were they better off living? Tortured and twisted for 8 or 10 or 12 years of their life and then left to die anyway because we cant even take care of the social work load we have already? This happens every day.[/quote}

I believe you fail to define your terms, IR. What is nightmarish? How tortured or twisted? How left to die? Sounds terrible but is it merely sound and fury?

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Try again. You are the one that stated american poor are "extremely well taken care of". I just called you on that error. Do you actually support that statement? That every single american ever born has been well off enough never to suffer miserably and wind up abused and/or dead or worse: so twisted as to cause significant harm to others over the course of their lives? You can really categorically state that in your argument against abortion?

I provided an illustration of that comment. You merely deny it and refuse to offer specifics. Your language is inflammatory, suggestive, and incapable of precision. I do, however, pick up the idea that killing an adequate number of persons in utero will somehow transform society. Perhaps you could offer some elucidation of that beneficent result?

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And who better to determine the impact of either issue? The pregnant person or the state?

The state has a vested interest in the protection of the next generation. Isn't that the basis of child welfare? Or did I just misunderstand that bit about "We hold these truths to be self-evident? ... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? You want the gurantee of the absolute of the individual? That's anarchy. So, yes, the state is the proper place to regulate abortion. Individuals have the opportunity to regulate the behaviour before a pregnancy comes into being. That's what individualism means, responsibility.

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by inked

That's what individualism means, responsibility.

that's the oddest definition of individualism i ever heard, inked.

that may well be the state's view on the extent of individualism: and for good people such as yourself, i can see how you take that to mean it is our own individual responisibility to be a responsible person. But as a definition of 'individualism ' as responsibility (which i know is off-topic) it IS odd!

Rian: you are as equally entitled to cartoons as anyone else: it is, and should be, a level playing field, no matter how cutting they are to both sides.

best all, BB

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

This passes for argument or what? The failure of every individual to be Bach would indict most of the world's population.

Is that at all what I said? Nice try at a set up. All I said was you cant use the argument that every aborted fetus will grow up to be Bach as justification against abortion and then completely discount the argument that every aborted fetus could be Hitler. Nevermind the hollow bold faced grandstanding nature of EITHER argument.

I provided an illustration of that comment.

Please show me where you illustrated that every child ever born in the US is “extremely well provided for�.

You merely deny it and refuse to offer specifics.

Specifics of what? That every US citizen ever born has not been “extremely well provided for�? That’s because it’s a patently ridiculous statement. You want me to provide you with specifics of people who haven’t been well provided for? Are you kidding?

Your language is inflammatory, suggestive, and incapable of precision.

My language on this is dead on, slick. You are the one that chooses to grandstand and overstate and use hyperbole and meaningless examples that divert from the real issue. Check the mirror before you start accusing others of being a blowhard and inflammatory (oh and check the gay lesbian thread too ). Don’t get all bent out of shape just because I call you on the obvious ones. My suggestion is move on to more legitimate ground where you can make more impact and the fight is more promising for you. Not scramble to defend a mostly bogus point despite all odds.

I do, however, pick up the idea that killing an adequate number of persons in utero will somehow transform society.

The only idea you should be picking up is that its stupid to use Bach OR Hitler as logic behind any argument for OR against abortion. Because 1. they counter each other out. And 2. statistically they are virtually meaningless. Get it now? If you wish to make a straw man of that simple comment then do it on your own time. Don’t ask me about it.

The state has a vested interest in the protection of the next generation.

Well then the state better start making breeding farms and forcing its citizenry to produce for the genetically optimal impact for the culture at large. Careful with that argument now, you lead yourself right into the old communist/totalitarian knee jerk charge ive seen you use against many others here without any reason for it.

Or did I just misunderstand that bit about "We hold these truths to be self-evident? ... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?

Are you using this as an argument against Roe V Wade? How come the supreme court felt the opposite then?

So, yes, the state is the proper place to regulate abortion. Individuals have the opportunity to regulate the behaviour before a pregnancy comes into being.

How can you make this argument when you are the one who posted with great indignation the articles about china's abortion policy? If the state is the proper place to legislate abortion then you should have absolutely no argument against what they do. You should agree with it. So why do you instead speak out of both sides of your mouth then?

By the way if you are mistaking me for someone who believes people should be able to abort at any time for any whim then you haven’t read my posts very carefully. Im certainly all about “regulation�. Its just apparently my level of regulation seems to you as nothing at all. Perhaps you should analyze it a little closer. You see in my idea of “regulation� individual choice plays a significant role in the equation where as apparently in yours the individual has no say over what happens to their body post pregnancy. Now what was that china policy again?

[Rían]

Just to insert a fact here - my husband, as part of his role of board member on the #2-rated charity by Forbes, visits the poor of other countries, where many live on top of trash dumps.

[Spock]

Please stay on topic.

[Curubethion]

Which is what, BTW? I'm kind of lost...not that good at reading looong posts.

[Spock]

most understandable