published Thursday, September 15th, 2011

The Demonstrators

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

94
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
SavartiTN said...

We have a winner, folks!

September 15, 2011 at 12:47 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

And if pro-abort, then go abort yourself?

I remember a big crowd outside the Vance Road abortuary when a rumor had been spread of a Rescue and both sides were out in force (peacefully). The pro-lifers included a fair number of families with children: people with a life. (I do of course affirm that prolifer Mother Theresa, who actually earned her Nobel Peace Prize and called abortion the greatest destroyer of peace in the modern world, had a life.) The pro-aborts looked, well, single and not especially marriage-minded. One pro-abort admitted in conversation that the pro-lifers tended to be leading more productive lives. Even in this cartoon, "THEN GET ONE" doesn't look as if shes having much of one. You murder a baby. Your circumstances are such as to make murdering a baby seem like a good idea. Get a life! Triune Jehovah forgives sinners who repent and follow Jesus Christ, as some industrial abortionists (Bernard Nathanson, Carol Everitt) have done.

September 15, 2011 at 4:35 a.m.
sandyonsignal said...

Love it. My sign : "Keep the Government Out of My Uterus"

If you are truly for protecting all the unborn things, then you should be protesting vasectomies. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, right? We had legislation introduced to do such that by our lawmakers, naturally, the hypocrite- misogynist "Pro Life" Party didn't go for that. Here is the link In 2009, TN Ban Vasectomies Tennessee House member Karen Camper (D-Memphis) has proposed House Resolution HJR132 which would add a provision to the Tennessee State Constitution that "Nothing in the Constitution of Tennessee secures or protects right to a vasectomy."

The resolution was proposed earlier this week, responding to a similar proposal HJR127 which was proposed by Republican Brian Kelsey, stating that "nothing in Constitution of Tennessee secures or protects right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion."

September 15, 2011 at 5:59 a.m.
EaTn said...

Some pro-choicers don't consider the life and welfare of the child before birth--- some pro-lifers don't consider the life and welfare of the child after birth.

September 15, 2011 at 6:20 a.m.
hambone said...

The looks of the pro-life women I see on TV will make a man

pro-choice!

September 15, 2011 at 6:32 a.m.
timbo said...

Another amateurish cartoon . Humorless as usual . Do we really need to get into this conversation with 9 percent unemployment ,14,000,000,000,000 in debt ,and the economy in the tank ? Bennett is the king of cheap shots .

September 15, 2011 at 6:39 a.m.
woody said...

First..to Clay..AMEN..AMEN..AMEN!!!

Lastly, to all of you well (overly, moderately, seemingly and under) educated individuals who have already posted today..or will..I would like to point out..THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "PRO-ABORTIONIST"..

Except in your own warped minds..Woody

September 15, 2011 at 6:43 a.m.
eeeeeek said...

Coat hangers a far safer in the back alley.. or in the barn where your dad got you pregnant in the first place.

September 15, 2011 at 7:01 a.m.
sunnydelight said...

Is eeeeeeks family history showing ?

September 15, 2011 at 7:05 a.m.
dude_abides said...

"I said I wouldn't comment more than once and not be personal on the main post. I didn't say I wouldn't give you a hard time privately. If you are so damn smart, why don't you..." (posted on my wall by timbo)

Has anybody else been stalked privately by timbo? While it illustrates his rule changing, hypocritical way "debating", it is a bit discomfiting to suddenly find yourself in an intimate setting, one on one, so close (seemingly) that you can smell his Komodo Dragon breath.

Andrew, there is a rumor going around of another Rescue! It's in Borneo.

September 15, 2011 at 7:44 a.m.
moon4kat said...

I thought Republicans wanted government off of people's backs . . . yet, they cannot resist the urge to control what a woman does with her body.
As Woody says, no one is pro-abortion. Pro-choice, yes, and pro-life for the living. If freedom means anything at all, it means that a woman gets to decide what happens with and within her own body. That's her choice, and her conscience to deal with it.

September 15, 2011 at 7:55 a.m.
harrystatel said...

Mother Teresa—An excellent example of Church ignorance. Loved suffering and starving babies so much she wanted more of them.

Yeah! Let's make her a Saint!

http://www.amazon.com/Missionary-Position-Mother-Teresa-Practice/dp/185984054X

September 15, 2011 at 8:16 a.m.
moon4kat said...

L4F, how surprising that you apparently believe everything written by a liberal from Portland, Oregon!

September 15, 2011 at 8:22 a.m.
fairmon said...

Pro-choice is fine as long as I have the choice of not funding it. I would prefer not contributing to the cost but if required to I would advocate sterilization as part of the process which would limit the expense to once per client.

The court ruled that a woman has the choice which is the law until changed. There is no justification for further government participation in the issue including Obama's executive order that insurers must cover the cost of the morning after pill. What justification is there for any government to require tax payers or health policy holders to help fund birth control or fertility treatments?

Many people in both parties advocate freedom of choice but far too many are not willing to accept the results and consequences of bad choices. Banks and borrowers entered into bad loans with a risk, like all loans have, they could not be paid. The government has and continues to require others to prevent them paying the consequences of bad choices.

September 15, 2011 at 8:35 a.m.
fairmon said...

A pro-choice question in the last republican candidates debate; A perfectly healthy 30 yo man that can afford to pay for a health care policy decides to not have health care. Something bad happens and he is taken to the hospital, what do you think should be done (implying the federal government had a role).

The answer should have been "nothing" that is an issue for the hospital and citizens in that community and/or state to deal with. He made a bad choice why should the federal government prevent the consequences of his bad choice. The question had nothing to do with those that cannot afford health care which is a totally different but still a state issue.

September 15, 2011 at 8:51 a.m.
jesse said...

lame cartoon,thats two in a row!(or three?)

September 15, 2011 at 8:52 a.m.
limric said...

The heated politics of being "pro-choice" has always overshadowed their blatant hypocrisy and has made rational debate next to impossible.

I have always found it bizarre that most of the pro-war Americans are pro-lifers. To be passionate enough to protest on a street corner in the hopes that you might save lives is something I can understand. Yet for pro-lifers to consistently and enthusiastically support leaders whose policies leave little consideration for the deaths of thousands of civilians — women, children, babies — is something I cannot understand. "It's a Child Not a Choice"? How about "It's a Kid Not Collateral Damage"?

Ninety nine percent of pro-lifers I’ve spoken with agreed that when it comes to supporting Middle East wars, the ends justify the deadly means, and yet they dedicate their lives to convincing women that no matter how desperate their situation, their chosen solutions are never acceptable. According to some pro-lifers, political objectives can be worth thousands of deaths, while individual objectives are never worth one.

Example: One gentleman (that happened to understand the real reason for the invasion of Iraq) explained, “Part of the reason we are in Iraq is that the acquisition of oil was necessary to keep America strong at home and abroad, if innocent lives were lost in the process, that was an unfortunate necessity.”
A very nice woman made a similar argument. “No one is ever comfortable with the deaths caused by war, but, unfortunately, they were inevitable. There is such thing as a just war you know!”

Civilian casualties are an unfortunate reality in any battle, and the Christian theory of a "just war" is intended to help determine which wars are moral and which are not. Christians are supposed to at least question the wars they fight, and yet today, many simply use the term to justify any war America fights without question, shamelessly calling themselves pro-life to boot.

It is impossible for me to take seriously those whose concern for the unborn consumes every thought, yet consider the human cost of war a mere afterthought and for whom life is only sacred when it's politically convenient.

September 15, 2011 at 9:03 a.m.
patriot1 said...

Bennett is so funny!! I enjoy his toons, certainly not for content but sheer entertainment.....same ole liberal playbook!!

September 15, 2011 at 9:09 a.m.

Lazy and unimaginative and what we've come to expect from the CFP (can no longer blame the weak employee).

I agree with harp. Let the people make their own choices, even if it's the wrong choice, but don't make me pay for it. That includes the banks, GM and Chrysler, and green energy flops as well.

September 15, 2011 at 9:29 a.m.
limric said...

YIN & YANG

A) It is a fact that all on the right who proclaim abortion is murder will run to an “abortuary” (credit AndrewLohr for that gem) if their wife or daughter is raped by thugs from MS13 or the Crips. Conveniently discounting the hypocrisy inherent in their choice. Murder is murder…..Right?

B) Conversely; Most on the left would rather that same wife or daughter carry a cell phone instead of a S&W 38 special. Conveniently discounting the effects of being accosted by the afore mentioned thugs being played out before the police arrive. Leading back to solution A.

September 15, 2011 at 9:52 a.m.
lumpy said...

You have to suspend all empathy and humanity in order to be ok with abortion as birth control, as it's utilized in this country, and with the staggering number of abortions since the green light was given in 1973.

It truly sickens me. It's a pox on this country.

I find you lefists particularly hypocritcal and cold. You pour out your hearts to murderers, but place the unborn in the same catagory as a gall bladder.

September 15, 2011 at 11:05 a.m.
moon4kat said...

L4F, despite what you may want, not all TFP subscribers are right-wing evangelistas. By trying to get Bennett fired (because you can't tolerate exposure to alternative views), you insist on "political correctness" of your own, one that fits into your own small view of the world.

September 15, 2011 at 11:10 a.m.

Here's a question, if a fetus isn't a baby and isn't "alive", why do they have to shove a pair of scissors into it's brain before they rip it out of the woman's uterus? What medical goal do the scissors accomplish?

September 15, 2011 at 11:21 a.m.

I think the powerful choosers should be allowed to hear the fetus cry and be forced to "abort" the fetus personally after it is removed from her uterus. If it is just a choice, they should have no problem accomplishing it.

September 15, 2011 at 11:37 a.m.
LZSally said...

Lumpy, as I see it, you have to suspend all empathy and humanity in order to be okay with war as it is utilized in this country, and with the staggering number of wars since this country was founded. It truly sickens me. It is a pox on this country. I find you particularly hypocritical and cold. You pour out your money to murderers, and war-mongers,and ignore the slaughter of millions of civilians. That's how I see it.

September 15, 2011 at 11:38 a.m.

LZSally,

That's dumb. He wasn't commenting on war or anything else. You must be a worshiper of abortion. How do his comments imply that he he's ok with the slaughter of millions of civilianS. DUMB!!

Hambone,

You're a pig for that comment. Typical.

September 15, 2011 at 11:46 a.m.
SavartiTN said...

Limric, excellent comments. Warmongers and those who support them are hypocrites.

This ProLife movement reminds me of the Muslims that want to control every aspect of a woman's life.

As the old saying goes, "If you don't believe in abortions, don't have one."

September 15, 2011 at 11:52 a.m.
SavartiTN said...

Andred Lohr said,

"The pro-aborts looked, well, single and not especially marriage-minded. One pro-abort admitted in conversation that the pro-lifers tended to be leading more productive lives.

You seem to represent all that is reprehensible about so called Christians...intolerant, demeaning, and self righteous...behavior that your Christ was against.

I agree with the cartoon...get a life!

September 15, 2011 at 12:03 p.m.
mrsmusic said...

@sandyonsignal's reasoning is absolutely ludicrous. A man who has a vasectomy does not create a life to be killed. There is no logical reason for protesting vasectomies. Pro-lifers could "get a life" if the pro-abortionists would stop snuffing them out. I guarantee that if there was never another abortion in the world, there would be enough people that want to adopt a baby to place every one of them.

September 15, 2011 at 12:12 p.m.
Musicman375 said...

Two wrongs don't make a right, LZSally. Can we try to stay on topic please?

FPSE, I've seen and heard your 11:21 question asked many times with no valid answer. Great question though. Maybe one day I'll get the answer on it.

September 15, 2011 at 12:15 p.m.
ooltewahvol said...

As a conservative pro-choice I think the goverment should pay for single women to have an abortion. Then just think about how much crime will be down 15-18 years from now.

September 15, 2011 at 12:44 p.m.

SavartiTN,

  You're thinking is not that much different than that of a

Muslim terrorist. They decide who deserves to stay and who doesn't because they want control, you decide who comes into the world and who doesn't because you want control. And the difference is? They decide who goes out, you decide who comes in.

You are control freaks! They do it for religous reasons, you do it for convenience. Their GOD isn't merciful, and neither is yours. They play god, you play god!!

If you don't believe in murder, then don't commit one!

September 15, 2011 at 12:49 p.m.
rolando said...

He was also against killing children [murder], savarti.

And fornication. [Hint: That can result in unwanted babies...other than same-sex sex.]

September 15, 2011 at 1:07 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

AndrewLohr said... "And if pro-abort, then go abort yourself?"

Leave it to the posters to deliver something worth visiting this page for!

As for Bennett's cartoon, how childish! As if someone fighting for the lives of the innocent unborn need any more purpose in life. It looks like the hag-to-be is the one that needs to get a life. I suppose her idea of a life is to engage in a constant stream of unprotected sex with random partners. She surely advocates for government payment for abortions and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases to boot. What a life! Give me, Give me, Give me, That Thing!

September 15, 2011 at 1:11 p.m.

why mrB, we thots you waz so smart! ever librall here said so but im not so shur now. this here toon is so pitty and mean, jus mean mrB! why you can do so many thins in this world and you go and meke dumb toons insted. shame mrB shame!!

"If you are truly for protecting all the unborn things... (miss scabney)

well miss im thinkin yur the most evil cold woMAn here today! did you have babies? well miss those babes started out real small in yur bodi ya know. did ya kill thum too? and id like to say to the other dumb qestions- why dont the babi have choice too?! who are yous to play God? and who was margit sanger? she had hate for black folks and po folks and startid that ole abortin mill a long time ago. ya know you go look.

we be loosing all blessings now, jus all of them. goodby america the beeutifull.

September 15, 2011 at 1:34 p.m.

mrAndrew lore- i jus want to say to you your wrotin up there is THE most beeutifull thing here today! Jesus blessis you and im sur you know that! lots of gud folks here today butt yur the best!!

thanky mrAndrew we luv you a-lot!

September 15, 2011 at 1:39 p.m.

Good Lord, Clay. Huckleberryfriend? You've given us (slightly) more believable strawmen than that.

September 15, 2011 at 2:02 p.m.
whatsnottaken said...

Looking at the woman in the cartoon. She's cheap, see the shoes; out of work, gets up, throws her hair into a pony so as not to have to fix it then tosses on a dirty sweatshirt to show how liberated she is. She needs pro choice cause as soon as the rally is over, she's headin to the bar to get drunk to prove her liberation, then she'll take some guy to the car she borrowed from a neighbor, and we know the rest of the story. Abortion is a neccessity for her.

September 15, 2011 at 2:13 p.m.

welll sorrri mr Rong butt im no mrB!! im huckle---berry---frend an moon rivir and im Me an ahnest too! mrB and his frends ar no ahnest we sur know that now!

why mr Rong ifn ya wanna fite wit me i sur will say cumma here mr and ill giv ya won big kisss insted!!! sur will shut ya maw up hey? no rudes ment sir, jus luv swet luv!

September 15, 2011 at 2:20 p.m.

I’m beginning to wonder about BRP and L4F, too. What’s so difficult to understand about the fact that the Free Press editorial board could hire a conservative cartoonist if they chose to do so? They instead choose to use syndicated cartoons for the print edition. If I’m not mistaken, online editions of newspapers typically don’t post their syndicated cartoons. Clay’s page gets so many comments not because of the CTFP’s contempt for fairness. It’s not really even because they’re that all that good. It’s because people like cartoons more than they arguments. Just sayin. P.S. L4F, you keep mistaking libertarianism for xenophobia. Von Mises shudders every time you enlist his movement for your red-neck blathering.

September 15, 2011 at 2:39 p.m.
adolphochs said...

Just so so predictable. Based on declining circulation rates, my guess is Bennett's time here will be ending. Good riddance.

September 15, 2011 at 2:41 p.m.
woody said...

FlyingPurpleSheepleEater said...

I think the powerful choosers should be allowed to hear the fetus cry and be forced to "abort" the fetus personally after it is removed from her uterus. If it is just a choice, they should have no problem accomplishing it.


Tell you what..FPSE..I'm willing to take on your aforementioned task..if you'll do me the honor of changing places with a young rape (and or incest) victim or how about just a woman who is not emotionally stable enough to bear the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy.

Or are you "Right-to-Lifers" only concerned with the lives of the as yet unborn instead of living, breathing and, yes, caring individuals. It's no wonder your ilk 'chooses' (ironic, don't you think) to overplay the word "abortion"..it's all you can muster in an effort to make you and your one-sided cause seem viable and worthwhile....

I'm glad my momma taught me better..Woody

September 15, 2011 at 2:42 p.m.

Now to the cartoon. "Get a life." I guess it's one way of diverting attention away from the elephant in the room. A bit juvenile, but, given the lack of an intelligent defense for the legality of such a grizzly practice, it's probably as good a comeback as can be expected. "Hope." "Change." “Yes We Can.” etc.

September 15, 2011 at 2:43 p.m.

Woody, There is always adoption. There are tons of families that can't have their own children who would be more than happy to adopt someone else's unwanted child.

September 15, 2011 at 2:46 p.m.

Nothing but chatter about the government not having a say in what you do with your body.. Are you a prostitute? Why not? Do you have the right to threaten to kill yourself without being forcibly commited to a mental institution? How about driving without a seatbelt? Riding a motorcycle without a helmet? Using any type of drug you want without a prescription? Drinking before the legal age? Eating salt in NY? Selling your duplicate organs? Now tell me the government doesn't tell you what you can and can't do with your body... Apparently we are all property of the USA.

September 15, 2011 at 2:46 p.m.
woody said...

FlyingPurpleSheepleEater said...

Woody, There is always adoption. There are tons of families that can't have their own children who would be more than happy to adopt someone else's unwanted child.


Just as I thought..just the same old stale argument....

Are you not man (if that is what you are) enough to simply take up "the gauntlet" I threw at your feet just a while ago?? No..I guess not....

No, neither one of us is capable (I'm assuming) of "walking that mile in someone else's shoes. Pity that..for if I were able, I would and if only to prove to you "Lifers" there is much more to being a pregnant woman than merely one life-altering decision..Woody

September 15, 2011 at 4:06 p.m.

Woody said...

No, neither one of us is capable (I'm assuming) of "walking that mile in someone else's shoes. Pity that..for if I were able, I would and if only to prove to you "Lifers" there is much more to being a pregnant woman than merely one life-altering decision.


So you are saying that what we really need is a system to support and comfort these women as they go through this tough 9 month period right?

September 15, 2011 at 5:29 p.m.
woody said...

No..what I am saying is to do that which you can do and leave those things which you cannot do or even begin to understand..alone.

Some people should realize "...a little knowledge without full understanding can be dangerous...."..Woody

September 15, 2011 at 6:12 p.m.
Livn4life said...

As usual I see all the usual lines about this issue. In the end, there will be a time of reckoning for all we have done. At that point we will face up to all the things we have embraced and that includes faithlessness too. Get a life of Faith and truly seek to see all sides of issues no matter where you stand on it. Not a lot of give and take from peeps who post on here. Not a lot of tolerance from many so called liberals. In this country a person has a right to hold to his/her beliefs or lack thereof. So stop belittling the ones not like your own. Who will abide by that?

September 15, 2011 at 6:23 p.m.
SavartiTN said...

I stand by my previous statements.

September 15, 2011 at 6:32 p.m.
fairmon said...

Why is it a law that a driver have liability insurance or the financial ability to self insure but someone on the dole can crank out kids like a bubble gum machine and increase their welfare income. Ignoring ideology and looking at the issue strictly from a cost benefit analysis would lead to a state law including:

1- Show financial ability to provide for a child before the birth. Failing to do so results in the child being available for adoption.

2-Provide funding for abortions for those that cannot afford one but sterilization will be included and include the male if he can be located.

3-Provide sterilization for those that cannot afford to pay for their own.

4-Provide birth control of their choice for those that cannot afford it.

The cost benefit would be a significant reduction in the dependent sector of society in one generation.

September 15, 2011 at 8:11 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

BigRidgePatriot said: “As if someone fighting for the lives of the innocent unborn need any more purpose in life.”

Actually, I’m beginning to think the world is no place for kids, BRP. A few days ago, I read some statistics that showed there are reports of child abuse being made every ten seconds, and almost five children die every day as a result of child abuse. Approximately 80% of these are under the age of four. Then, of course, there are millions and millions of children in the U.S. living in poverty:

According to data released by the U.S. Census Bureau, there are 16.4 million children, or 22 percent of our nation's children, living in poverty (which is defined as a family of four with income below $22,000 a year).

"In just three years, the recession has increased the number of children living in poverty by 3 million -- the equivalent of filling every seat at Lambeau Field, the football stadium of the NFL Champion Green Bay Packers, with nothing other than children in poverty at every home game over five seasons (41 games).

One lesson is clear: supporting our nation's children isn't just the right thing to do -- it's one of the best investments we can make as a nation. And yet, our nation’s leaders just cut the federal share of spending on our nation’s children from 9.2 percent in 2010 to 8.4 percent in 2011. You simply can't expect returns on investments you don't make, and it's time we started investing in our children again. If we care about our future, there is simply no excuse."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-lesley/growing-child-poverty-in-_b_962604.html

September 15, 2011 at 9:04 p.m.
fairmon said...

mntl,,

How would you invest in our children? It is obvious that welfare to the parents is not working in far too many cases. Did you see the interview with the granddaughter that was coached by her grandmother to have more kids? They had increased the families income to over $100,000 per year through various welfare programs but the children weren't properly cared for or educated? Millions of kids are in environments not conducive to improving their lot in life and are destined to become another generation of government dependents.

There are exceptions where help is needed and not abused. But, could it be the current approach in many cases provides an incentive to not work and more have children to generate income?

I would support a well funded education system that took kids in poverty into a private school setting with 12 hour school days, three good meals a day, nice uniforms, the best and well paid teachers available that truly loved the kids, small classes, highly trained counselors and recreational activities. I would object if the teachers union were involved since they would muck it up. Make these schools so good that children in bad home environments preferred being at school. This is the only way I see to break the cycle. There has to be a better way than what we are doing that frequently isn't working.

I think some wealthy and fortunate encourage and demand government welfare to sooth their conscience without seeking ways to reduce dependency.

September 15, 2011 at 11:33 p.m.
davisss13 said...

Bennett, as usual, is on target. Excellent cartoon.

September 16, 2011 at 8:36 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

mountainlaurel,

The welfare state has weakened the family by making it quite manageable to raise children without the support of the extended family or even a spouse. Women without a spouse have children at will despite readily available abortion.

Some would argue that the far left wing of the political spectrum recognizes this side effect of welfare and actually welcome it as a tool to degrade the family. A strong family and the resulting support mechanisms reduce reliance on government and make it hard to impose socialism.

Promotion of even more government support, while good intentioned in most cases, only serves to destroy better mechanisms to address the needs of children.

September 16, 2011 at 9:16 a.m.

harp3339 said...

“Ignoring ideology and looking at the issue strictly from a cost benefit analysis would lead to a state law including: 1- Show financial ability to provide for a child before the birth. Failing to do so results in the child being available for adoption. 2-Provide funding for abortions for those that cannot afford one but sterilization will be included and include the male if he can be located.3-Provide sterilization for those that cannot afford to pay for their own. 4-Provide birth control of their choice for those that cannot afford it. The cost benefit would be a significant reduction in the dependent sector of society in one generation.”


State means-testing for the natural right to conceive and bear children? That’s a pretty far-reaching and intrusive power to accede to the government. Utilitarian arguments about the value of human life are ones on which statists and secular libertarians often stand shoulder-to-shoulder. The results over the course of history, as well as today, have been chilling.

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/sep/16/tennessee-mom-tells-police-she-smothered-newborn-t/?breakingnews

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DISABLED_GIRL_KILLED?SITE=ALANN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Called it intolerant or ideological, but once a child is conceived, no one (including the mother, her parents, her “mate,” or the state) should have the ability to use a utilitarian calculus to determine the fitness of the baby’s survival. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, would be delighted with those of you suggesting forced sterilization or abortion for "undesirables." The fact that such measures violate inalienable rights should be considered more carefully.

September 16, 2011 at 12:06 p.m.

Many pro-choice advocates don't seek open discussions or debates about such an important issue. They are mostly interested in chanting mantras. (I'll leave it to others to determine whether or not their mantras constitute an attempt to impose their religion on others.) This is an example of the pro-choice commitment to rational discussion and to the freedoms of speech and assembly:

http://www.lifenews.com/2011/09/16/college-campus-censorship-abortion-activists-dont-trust-women/

September 16, 2011 at 12:20 p.m.
shifarobe said...
 By you abortion lovin' libs' thinkin', Obaboons mommy would have done the right thing if she would've done away with him.

DAMN, we'd be better off!

September 16, 2011 at 12:31 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

BigRidgePatriot said: " Women without a spouse have children at will despite readily available abortion."

Good grief, BRP. I must confess I didn’t realize that women could have children at will. Indeed, I’ve always thought a male needed to be involved in the process. Is this special ability limited to women on welfare or can any woman do it?

Now I understand why so many men try to avoid paying child support and take responsibility for the children they bring into the world. It’s because they have nothing to do with bringing children into the world. Women do it at will.

You know, BRP, I think you should alert that Chicago judge who recently scolded U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.). The judge needs to know that Rep. Walsh is an innocent man and under no circumstances should he have to pay child support. Everything is most likely the fault of his ex-wife who obviously had the children "at will" without Rep. Walsh's permission or knowledge :

“A Chicago judge issued a preliminary ruling Wednesday against U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) in his child-support dispute with his ex-wife, ordering the Tea Party favorite to explain why he appears to be $100,000 behind in child-support payments.

Cook County Circuit Judge Raul Vega also wanted to know why Walsh wasn’t in court Wednesday — the McHenry Republican’s ex-wife, Laura Walsh, was there — and initially said he expected him to show up for the next hearing.

In court, Walsh’s attorney, Janet Boyle, asked Vega “for what purpose” he wanted the congressman in court.

Vega gave her a puzzled look — to which Boyle responded: “Mr. Walsh is a U.S. congressman.”

“Well, he’s no different than anyone else,” the judge replied.”

http://www.suntimes.com/news/7656284-417/judge-scolds-rep-joe-walsh-in-child-support-case-with-ex-wife.html

September 16, 2011 at 1:03 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Libertarian4Freedom said: “A woman catching pregnancy is no different than a man catching an STD. You play? You pay. Who forced the woman to have unsafe sex if she knew it could result in her pregnancy? And what about women who lie about taking birth control?”

So am I to understand the bottom line in Republican Senator Walsh’s case is that his ex-wife lied to him about taking birth control pills. I don’t think so, L4F. I think Republican Senator Walsh is what is commonly referred to as a “dead beat” dad. And for some reason, America seems to have a lot of ““dead beat” dads who don't want to accept responsibility for the children they bring into this world. I guess we could say they're anti-children.

September 16, 2011 at 1:33 p.m.
limric said...

Libertarians4Freedom said quote: “Maybe pro-choicers would have more creditability if they weren't so anti-man.”

I’m pro-choice. My stance is completely logical, credible and very much in keeping with the personal liberties, freedoms venerated by you, and it just so happens to be a constitutional right.

As I said earlier, “I can’t take seriously those professing an urgent concern for the unborn, yet consider the human cost of war or the lives of children once born mere afterthoughts for whom life is only sacred when it's politically convenient.

Every Pro-life zealot posting here or marching the sidewalks WILL make a pro-choice decision if a situation becomes distasteful or someone they love is the victim of a crime - Every one! Oh you can offer up your own exceptions and justifications, but it is still the same hypocrisy.

And I ain’t anti-man…cause I are one.

September 16, 2011 at 3:15 p.m.
fairmon said...

You are a politician twisting words so you can make a point. Don't dare suggest I recommended forced abortion for any reason. I don't think it should happen but if it is a woman's choice per the courts then so be it. However, if I am to help pay for an abortion (welfare) then I will insist that sterilization be included.

My persoanl belief is that the ease with which an abortion is obtained actually results in more pregnancies and more abortions.

If this response was meant for I did not say or imply the following.

those of you suggesting forced sterilization or abortion for "undesirables." The fact that such measures violate inalienable rights should be considered more carefully.

September 16, 2011 at 4:17 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Libertarian4Freedom said: “I'm not anti-sex or anti-children, I'm only anti-double standard. If women are free to abort then men should be free to abort the responsibility of fatherhood."

Since child support involves the financial responsibilities for living children, your explanation doesn’t make any sense, L4F? No, your reasoning sounds like a “dead beat dad” cop out to me. Child support involves specific financial responsibilities toward the support of children - not support for the former spouse. The term used to describe financial responsibilities toward the support of the former spouse would be alimony. As for former Senator John Edwards, deadbeat dads are deadbeat dads, L4F. If John Edwards is refusing to contribute toward the support of a child he fathered, he would be considered a deadbeat dad – just like Senator Walsh.

September 16, 2011 at 4:44 p.m.
shifarobe said...

OBABOOOOOOOOOON, SHOULDA BEEN ABORTED BY HIS TEEN MOMMY!

September 16, 2011 at 7:53 p.m.
fairmon said...

mntl,

Something we agree on is the dead beat dad laws. I would strengthen it to include any father that allowed a child to need welfare should have to perform community service to pay for the welfare in addition to having what he owes withheld from any earnings. Some get around it by working for cash and that needs to be stopped as well. The birth rates for the dependent society compared to working couples with higher incomes is alarming, I don't recall it specific enough to risk posting it but it was obvious if something isn't done to break the cycle of dependency the debt congress is haggling over is trivial compared to the future.

The problem with budget projections is the data provided the OMB is always optimistic regarding future revenue and spending. Spending is always more than projected and unless unemployment is reduced to 5-6% the revenue projections are grossly over stated.

September 16, 2011 at 8:02 p.m.

Those who defend abortion by accusing those who are against it of not caring about all the innocent lives lost in war are making themselves look ridiculous. No one is for the loss of innocent lives in war. No one with any heart, that is. But you abortion supporters do approve of the loss of innocent lives, and the killing of innocent human beings. Should I assign degrees of innocence to illustrate it for you?? There is nothing more innocent than an unborn human being. This cartoonist always has the man represented as pro-choice. I'm pro-choice...and I'm very much a woman.

September 16, 2011 at 8:11 p.m.
dude_abides said...

blondbutnotprochoicebutprolifebutnotprolifechoice... you're very much a blond.

September 16, 2011 at 8:34 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

BlondButNotDumb said: “There is nothing more innocent than an unborn human being.”

And a 5 month-old infant? A 12-month old toddler? A 7 year-old second grader? Specifically, what makes any child less innocent than an unborn fetus, BBND?

BlondButNotDumb said: “Those who defend abortion by accusing those who are against it of not caring about all the innocent lives lost in war are making themselves look ridiculous. No one is for the loss of innocent lives in war. . . But you abortion supporters do approve of the loss of innocent lives, and the killing of innocent human beings.

Who approves and pays for the wars where innocent lives are lost, BBND?

September 16, 2011 at 10:25 p.m.
porkchop3xpress said...

L4F, if you hate the cartoons so much why do you keep reading them?

September 20, 2011 at 12:53 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.