Pro-Abortion Doonesbury Cartoon Calls Ultrasound Rape

  • Thread starter Thread starter juliee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“Trudeau described it as “appalling” and “insane” that Republicans would allow women to see their baby on the ultrasound screen before an abortion.” How dare these horrible people expose women to the truth! :rolleyes:
 
floresco said:
“Trudeau described it as “appalling” and “insane” that Republicans would allow women to see their baby on the ultrasound screen before an abortion.” How dare these horrible people expose women to the truth! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
This is not correct. He called the insertion of a device into a woman who did not want it inserted “appalling” and “insane”. What did pro-lifers think people would say about this idea?
 
floresco said:
“Trudeau described it as “appalling” and “insane” that Republicans would allow women to see their baby on the ultrasound screen before an abortion.” How dare these horrible people expose women to the truth! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
He did not. The story in the Guardian, on which the Lifenews story is “based”, if that is the right word, says:

In an email exchange with the Guardian, Trudeau expressed dismay over the papers’ decision but was unrepentant, describing as “appalling” and “insane” Republican state moves on women’s healthcare.
 
The article says that some of the papers have moved the cartoon to the editorial page instead of the cartoon page…that implies that some of the papers have not, I guess that means that this piece of junk will appear next to the cartoons aimed at children.
 
Hokomai said:
He did not. The story in the Guardian, on which the Lifenews story is “based”, if that is the right word, says:

In an email exchange with the Guardian, Trudeau expressed dismay over the papers’ decision but was unrepentant, describing as “appalling” and “insane” Republican state moves on women’s healthcare.
Click to expand...
The Texas governor Rick Perry, who dropped out of the Republican presidential candidates race in January, signed the abortion measure into law in May 2010.
Click to expand...
His press spokeswoman, Catherine Frazier, asked about the Doonesbury strip, said:** “The decision to end a life is not funny. There is nothing comic about this tasteless interpretation of legislation we have passed in Texas to ensure that women have all the facts when making a life-ending decision.” **guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/11/doonesbury-strip-texas-abortion-law
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
Hokomai said:
He did not. The story in the Guardian, on which the Lifenews story is “based”, if that is the right word, says:

In an email exchange with the Guardian, Trudeau expressed dismay over the papers’ decision but was unrepentant, describing as “appalling” and “insane” Republican state moves on women’s healthcare.
Click to expand...
I acknowledge that Lifenews has put its own spin on things. Can we agree that Trudeau used the words “appalling” and “insane” to refer to legislation that requires ultrasounds before an abortion? Perhaps you can tell me what is appalling and insane about women understanding exactly what it is they are killing. Is it sane for women to have an abortion believing they are removing a “clump of cells” when that is a lie?
 
The more and more I hear about this, the more I am inclined to think this was actually a sophisticated philosophical move on the part of some pro-life politician. Not as an end in itself (that would obviously be deranged) but as a kind of “send-a-message” move. Of my liberal friends who have complained about this, I have already gotten one to admit that it’s because rights exist objectively and transcend the state’s say-so (i.e., thus the state can’t invent a “right” to abortion). Trudeau’s complaint likewise exposes the fact that crimes are crimes even when the state doesn’t say so – i.e., rape is still rape even if the state says it isn’t. And murder is still murder no matter how many times the Supreme Court says otherwise. Brilliant move.
 
juliee said:
Pro-Abortion Doonesbury Cartoon Calls Ultrasound Rape

Washington, DC – Doonesbury cartoonist Garry Trudeau is under fire from conservatives again, this time because he is running a cartoon that some newspaper already plan not to run because it compares ultrasound to rape.

lifenews.com/2012/03/12/pro-abortion-doonesbury-cartoon-calls-ultrasound-rape/
Click to expand...
That’s the media for ya.

Popes have said that , “the smoke of Satan has entered the Vatican”… if that’s the Vatican and the Pope is doing a pretty good job of fighting of the devil - think of the easy targets like the different medias.

They are infested with Luciferian and demonic workings.
 
floresco said:
I acknowledge that Lifenews has put its own spin on things. Can we agree that Trudeau used the words “appalling” and “insane” to refer to legislation that requires ultrasounds before an abortion? Perhaps you can tell me what is appalling and insane about women understanding exactly what it is they are killing. Is it sane for women to have an abortion believing they are removing a “clump of cells” when that is a lie?
Click to expand...
This is not spin. It is straight out untrue. What you say about Trudeau’s opionion is true. What the OP and Lifenews said was not true. But why do you think that because I do not support extreme or false attacks on pro-choice positions that I must therefore support the views of the person attacked?

In fact, I support full and informed consent as a requirement in abortion, including knowledge of the range of positions on whether or not the zygote, embryo or fetus is a human being, and alternatives to abortion. I see nothing wrong with a voluntary scan, or with voluntary scans being routinely available and required to be available by law. I can, however, see serious problems with compulsory procedures on an unwilling woman to produce an image identical to millions already recorded. I wonder about a) the ethics of such a procedure and b) the political wisdom of pro-life people who advocate it.
 
Hokomai said:
This is not spin. It is straight out untrue. What you say about Trudeau’s opionion is true. What the OP and Lifenews said was not true. But why do you think that because I do not support extreme or false attacks on pro-choice positions that I must therefore support the views of the person attacked?
Click to expand...
I really don’t see how the Lifenews claim was straight out untrue. I should not have made assumptions about your position. I apologize.
In fact, I support full and informed consent as a requirement in abortion, including knowledge of the range of positions on whether or not the zygote, embryo or fetus is a human being, and alternatives to abortion. I see nothing wrong with a voluntary scan, or with voluntary scans being routinely available and required to be available by law. I can, however, see serious problems with compulsory procedures on an unwilling woman to produce an image identical to millions already recorded. I wonder about a) the ethics of such a procedure and b) the political wisdom of pro-life people who advocate it.
Click to expand...
If the ultrasound is made part of the process of getting an abortion, then, by choosing an abortion, the woman also chooses the ultrasound. Therefore it is voluntary.

The ultrasound is considerably less intrusive and less unpleasant than the abortion.
 
Thanks for your thoughtful response Floresco.
floresco said:
I really don’t see how the Lifenews claim was straight out untrue.
Click to expand...
The statement we are discussing is:

“Trudeau described it as “appalling” and “insane” that Republicans would allow women to see their baby on the ultrasound screen before an abortion.”

The issue is - is this untrue, or is it ‘spin’. I say it is untrue because Trudeau did not so describe Republicans 'allow[ing] women to see their baby on the ultrasound screen before an abortion." In fact, he described as “appalling” and “insane” requiring women to undergo a scan before an abortion. The difference is the difference between voluntary medical procedures, and compulsory or coerced procedures.
floresco said:
If the ultrasound is made part of the process of getting an abortion, then, by choosing an abortion, the woman also chooses the ultrasound. Therefore it is voluntary.
Click to expand...
I give you full marks for creativity on this one, but it is easy to deal with by reducing the rgument to absurdity. The same could be said of a legal requirement that a woman do anything at all before an abortion, say, parade up and down the main street wearing a placard stating her intention. No one would say that was voluntary. The problem in the argument arises because it is a procedure not required for an abortion. So any other action could be logically described as ‘voluntary’ if it were to be added to the requirements for abortion.
The ultrasound is considerably less intrusive and less unpleasant than the abortion.
Click to expand...
Agreed, for all but extremely early abortions using drugs alone.
 
floresco said:
“Trudeau described it as “appalling” and “insane” that Republicans would allow women to see their baby on the ultrasound screen before an abortion.” How dare these horrible people expose women to the truth! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
As others have pointed out, LifeNews has a poor record at accurate reporting. And they did misquote Garry Trudeau, falsely stating that he had a position which he has never stated.

Trudeau was not objecting to women being allowed to view an ultrasound. Indeed, that has always been their right.

What he called appalling and insane are the actions of many state legislatures, but the Texas legislature in particular. Here is what Garry Trudeau actually said:
Garry Trudeau:
Ninety-nine percent of American women have or will use contraception during their lifetimes. To see these healthcare rights systematically undermined in state after state by the party of ‘limited government’ is appalling.

In Texas, the sonograms are the least of it. The legislature has also defunded women’s health clinics all over the state, leaving 300,000 women without the contraceptive services that prevent abortions in the first place. Insanity.
Click to expand...
guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/11/doonesbury-strip-texas-abortion-law?newsfeed=true

The paragraph by LifeSite which quotes him bears no resemblance to what Trudeau actually said. His quote is largely about contraception, not the mandatory transvaginal ultrasound.
 
Dale_M said:
As others have pointed out, LifeNews has a poor record at accurate reporting. And they did misquote Garry Trudeau, falsely stating that he had a position which he has never stated.
…]
The paragraph by LifeSite which quotes him bears no resemblance to what Trudeau actually said. His quote is largely about contraception, not the mandatory transvaginal ultrasound.
Click to expand...
Thanks for this clear explanation. I see what the problem is now. I should have known better than to trust Lifenews.
 
Hokomai said:
I give you full marks for creativity on this one, but it is easy to deal with by reducing the rgument to absurdity. The same could be said of a legal requirement that a woman do anything at all before an abortion, say, parade up and down the main street wearing a placard stating her intention. No one would say that was voluntary. The problem in the argument arises because it is a procedure not required for an abortion. So any other action could be logically described as ‘voluntary’ if it were to be added to the requirements for abortion.
Click to expand...
I had elective surgery some years ago and I had to fill pages and pages of forms. I hate filling in forms. Was I forced to fill in the forms or was it a voluntary action?
 
“In Texas, the sonograms are the least of it. The legislature has also defunded women’s health clinics all over the state, leaving 300,000 women without the contraceptive services that prevent abortions in the first place. Insanity,” he said.

Here is where Mr. Trudea is wrong. Contraception does not prevent abortion but is the root cause of abortion.

Contraception has created a society which demands sex as a recreational activity. The demand for recreational sex is facilitated through contraception and the demand cannot be satisified. The result of this sex saturated culture is venerial disease, pregnant teens, unwed mothers, and an increased demand for abortion.Get rid of contraception and these problems mostly just go away.

Contraception does not prevent abortion, but leads a sex crazed society directly to it.

Planned Parenthood understands this. That’s why they give out free birth control pills, because they know that many of these girls will be back for abortions before too long.

-Tim-
 
floresco said:
“Trudeau described it as “appalling” and “insane” that Republicans would allow women to see their baby on the ultrasound screen before an abortion.” How dare these horrible people expose women to the truth! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Changing the meaning of his words as you have done is dishonest.

He is calling a spade a spade. The ultrasound law is, at its core, exactly what he describes. It is a procedure which is intentionally inconvenient and uncomfortable for the woman with the purpose of deterring her from getting an abortion. It is understandable that pro-life activists feel such inconvenience and discomfort is an acceptable means to the end of preventing abortion. Whether or not it is permissible in our legal system is another matter.
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
Changing the meaning of his words as you have done is dishonest.

He is calling a spade a spade. The ultrasound law is, at its core, exactly what he describes. It is a procedure which is intentionally inconvenient and uncomfortable for the woman with the purpose of deterring her from getting an abortion. It is understandable that pro-life activists feel such inconvenience and discomfort is an acceptable means to the end of preventing abortion. Whether or not it is permissible in our legal system is another matter.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it was not clear that the comment you find dishonest was a quote from the article linked in the OP. Other posts in this thread have convinced me that it was indeed dishonest.

Anyone woman who is not able to handle the inconvenience and discomfort of an ultrasound, will not be able to bear the far worse pain of an abortion.
 
Hokomai said:
He did not. The story in the Guardian, on which the Lifenews story is “based”, if that is the right word, says:

In an email exchange with the Guardian, Trudeau expressed dismay over the papers’ decision but was unrepentant, describing as “appalling” and “insane” Republican state moves on women’s healthcare.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I am missing something here? The link to lifenews says this:
Responding to the criticism and the decisions by the papers, Trudeau described it as “appalling” and “insane” that Republicans would allow women to see their baby on the ultrasound screen before an abortion.
Click to expand...
The parts in quotes refer to the exact words Trudeau used. That is correct, right? The rest is not in quotes and relates what he said in the writers own terms. Is that dishonest?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top