Forget Doonesbury: What If Other Comic Strips Took on the Sonogram Bill?

dooneopen.jpg
Doonesbury, you're not alone.
Some testicle-free newspapers got a bit nervous when Doonesbury creator Garry Trudeau incorporated a story arc about Texas's controversial "Sonogram Bill," which requires women seeking an abortion to undergo a trans-vaginal ultrasound at least 24 hours prior to the procedure. Doctors must also present audio of the fetus's heartbeat. The requirement may only be waived in a medical emergency; there are no exceptions for cases of rape.

Making the bill even more weird is the proviso that neither party can be penalized if the woman "chooses not to receive the information," which apparently means that if the woman closes her eyes and covers her ears, she won't have to go to jail. How compassionate.

A few papers pulled the comic for the week, opting to run older strips in its place. We applaud those who stood firm, and we applaud Trudeau -- never one to shy away from controversy -- for tackling this icky subject. We just wish more cartoonists would have done the same. But since they didn't, Hair Balls took it upon ourselves, with the help of Art Director Monica Fuentes.

Click on the images to enlarge.

Mary Worth

mary worth.jpg



Dilbert

dilbert.jpg



Family Circus
famcirc2.jpg

Apt. 3-G
apt3-Gfixed.jpg



Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
207 comments
Mick
Mick

Copyright infringement. 

MaloneJavier911
MaloneJavier911

 best friend's sister-in-law brought in $16342 last month. she has been working on the laptop and got a $560200 home. All she did was get fortunate and put to use the guide laid out on this web page makecash16. çom

jessicawayne
jessicawayne

my best friend's sister-in-law brought in $15239 a month ago. she has been making cash on the laptop and bought a $524600 condo. All she did was get lucky and put into work the clues laid out on this site MakeCash10.comONLY||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Maria
Maria

Way to miss the point with the "testicle-free" jab at the newspapers. Because lacking courage means they're "testicle-free"?? 

Al Pavangkanan
Al Pavangkanan

Wally wouldn't show that much care.  The pointy haired boss would say that kind of stuff though.

NoMoreFalseGods
NoMoreFalseGods

This is a woman issue and your just a man so your imput means nothing. When you quote the bible it means less than nothing. Wrap your book around a 10'' wand, stick it where the sun don't shine, then go to the hell of your choice.

Mo Rage
Mo Rage

Why any woman, Black, Hispanic, physically-challenged, elderly person or gay would vote Republican defies logic.  Well, unless they're just already rich. And selfish.

Mo Rage
Mo Rage

Republicans: The "Small Government" political party.

Yeah.  Right.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Cal Hawks
Cal Hawks

Dennis the Menace and Family Circus haven't made me laugh that hard since I was 5 :D

ColleenPatriciaWilliams
ColleenPatriciaWilliams

Love it!! Now I want to see the men go through evals both physical as well as physiological. After all, if a man is only out to procreate then he needs no Viagra for fun. Nope. No impotence drugs unless they can prove that they are out to procreate. 

Michael De Paulo
Michael De Paulo

If women truly want the right to choose, simply support a man's right to choose. If a man doesn't want anything to do with the child, he can financially "abort" it and is not required to pay support for 18 years. If women would stand up for the "Right to Choose" for men, then there would be no question that they, too, would have a right to choose. Until then, women should have no right to kill an unborn baby--period.

EddytheCat
EddytheCat

This coment was supposed to be directed to Muishuis as a reply. I have no idea how it was directed elsewhere.

EddytheCat
EddytheCat

I truely appreciate you thoughtful, honest and personalized reply as they are are a rarity. Although I have been a lifelong single male and now my latter 60's, I have been fortunate enough to have coached a womens slow pitch baseball team for 17 seasons and at least 50% of my coworkers at the Forest Service were women. What has happened is that after so much familiarity, women, unlike men, begin to treat you like one as personal part of their lives. I am aware of things that most men will never be exposed to and your difficult decision to opt for an abortion and the regrets that you feel is quite understandable. I only wish that men could be as honest with their feelings as women seem to be. My respects to you, Theo White. Eddy is my cats name.

Miz Dinah
Miz Dinah

Reality: with our little planet facing such a staggering over population problem; any kind of birth control should be a free and easily accessible alternative.

ErnestPayne
ErnestPayne

I remember when For Better or For Worse had a character come "out of the closet" and the media got up and ran. Congratulations to Mr. Trudeau. 

Fern Fedora
Fern Fedora

Forget SONOGRAMS -- What if other cartoons talked about OTHER WOMEN's ISSUESthat aren't being talked about??? The GREAT BARRIER Brief reproductive health & safety 4 WOMEN

@font-face { font-family: "Times New Roman";}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }h6 { margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 7.5pt; font-family: Times; }table.MsoNormalTable { font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }span.textexposedshow { }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }

The past history is of much interestto non-Republicans right now as during the BUSH Administration the NIH FUNDINGGUIDELINES were demoted to EXCLUDE ALL FUNDING for women, especiallycontraception and prophylaxis, effectively red-taping this idea thus preventingits use by women.

Will yousign these two petitions?

Please click on the petitionsto educate everyone.

http://signon.org/sign/the-gre...

 

http://www.change.org/petition...

THEN we educate, organize and create licensed COOPERATIVES and make ourprotection ourselves as low-cost as possible!  We give them to those we love.  No corporate mark-up on our private lives!!!

Last, remember Gilda Radner as Roseanne Rosannedanna : 

"Why dothey call them PRIVATES if it's everybody else's BUSINESS???? "

 

Davisdmail
Davisdmail

 As a Vietnam combat vet  and father of 3 bright, thinking, and thankfully liberal daughters, I would not tolerate anyone against trying any kind of crap like that. Fortunately they live in thinking progressive states!

James Platt
James Platt

I have always thought abortion is between a husband, wife, and their doctor.....Not legislators, not governors, not conservatives, nor liberals...HUSBAND, WIFE, and THEIR DOCTOR !!!!

LAPhil
LAPhil

Funny stuff, no matter which side of the fence you're on.

Rita Ryack
Rita Ryack

As Matt Groening says, "IT is unwise to annoy cartoonists."

Dale Hogue
Dale Hogue

I don't agree with what has been posted by some of the other posters.  But, I'm not surprised at how far liberals are willing to go when it comes to getting their political opinions published.  I'm against abortion because it means killing a human being at a point when he or she is the most defenseless and the most vulnerable.  And I feel strongly about this affirmation.  Why would any intelligent person decide that she or he should determine who lives and who dies at that point in another person's life? 

When the history of the world is written some thousands of years from now, the era of baby killers will be noted and fully reported as the most shameful era of mankind's cruelty toward other members of our human society.  All your liberal arguments will mean nothing to the readers of this shameful historical era, just the way it means nothing to those of us who are pro-life in the year of our Lord 2012.  Pro-choice will mean exactly what is should mean: that each child bearer has the legal right to kill her unborn child without feeling any of the remorse that is generally felt by those who do the killing of innocent children for any other reason known to humankind.  

It will be reported in this historic account that most of those individuals involved in the murder of these innocent children were members of a political group that set before the electorate a clear statement that these murders should be allowed under the specific demands set forth in the political platform of the liberal enclaves that controlled the thinking of the Democratic Party. 

No argument will be persuasive when presented to the generation of humans who will be the readers of this historical accounting of the most inhuman and horrendous atrocities in the history of humankind.  No atrocity in the history of humankind will even come close to the wickedness and inhumanity that this abortion era represented in our history.

You can write what you please in response to this post that I've presented here, but nothing you will write will come close to convincing any of us who believe differently than the pro-choice members of our supposed civil society that they are right and that pro-life members of this society are wrong.

aerows
aerows

 Men have the right to choose.  You can choose to keep it in your pants.  No sex, no pregnancies, no problem.  If you have ever had sex with a woman out of wedlock, you are part of the problem.

Women don't get pregnant all by themselves.  That's what is consistently missed by those who are rabidly "anti-choice". 

Outsidelookingin
Outsidelookingin

Men have the right to choose now. 

They can choose to be responsible and wear a condom.  They can have a vasectomy.  They can not abstain from sex altogether until they are in a relationship where they make an informed decision to have a child...

No pregnancy.  No abortions.  No financial support.

me
me

Actually, not funny at all.

Human
Human

no body has any right, moral or otherwise, to force me be stay pregnant if I don't want to be.  It is MY body, not yours.  You may do whatever you want to your body and you will keep your nose out of mine.  I decide what happens to my body and if pregnancy happens I decide if it goes to term or not... NOT YOU, not anyone BUT ME!!!   IT IS MY BODY!!!   MY BODY -- keep your OPINIONS/beliefs OUT of MY BODY!!!!

Jess
Jess

I assume that you wouldn't allow an exception in the case of rape or incest, or is it OK to "murder" some fetuses?

Marie Seibel
Marie Seibel

 And how many of these innocent children are you willing to adopt and raise?

Melissa Limasse
Melissa Limasse

The difference is having a different belief and forcing someone else to conform to that belief. Also, the 14th amendment states that all rights are applied to persons BORN in the U.S.  A fetus is not born, therefore does not have more rights than the woman who's life it has just altered, who's body it has just inhabited.

That being said, I'm am pretty staunchly opposed to woman who utilize abortion as their form of birth control. The ones who can't be bothered with the pill, or IUD, or condoms, or anything. I used to work with a girl like this. She was 19, and at one time she'd had five. I don't want to know how many she's up to know.

As a unapologetic Pro-Choicer, I support her right to make that decision, but I have far more support for someone providing the coaching necessary for her to make safer decisions. .

To your conclusion, I say this: Pro-Choice is not Pro-Abortion. We would also like to see the abortion rate go down. But while it still exists, we want to make sure the process, which is 100% legal, remains as safe as possible. It's already a decision that's near impossible to make. If we keep lumping all this shaming into it, woman will resort to the barbaric methods of old.

There is nothing that any Anti-Choicers (let's call it what it really is, okay) can say to convince a Pro-Choicer that they are wrong.

Outsidelookingin
Outsidelookingin

When I read postings like this one I'm always afraid for the direction that the US is going. 

Where is the balance?  You are, as stated, clearly pro-life.  Where do you stand on education?  Do you believe that children should be taught ALL the options available to prevent pregnancy? 

I sit firmly in the pro-choice camp.  To me that means that women have the right to say yes or no. 

No I don't want to have sex with you. 

No I don't want to have a child when I'm still a child because a man with power over me has convinced me that I need to do 'this' because he's a sick pervert who should be in jail.  Yes I do want to have open access to all forms of SAFE birthcontrol because it is better to prevent pregnancy than to have an abortion. 

Yes I choose to have this child because I am a responsible human being who has planned to bring a new life into the world and I can afford to love it and raise it to be a contributing member of the human race.

Yes, after much thought on my part and in discussion with my partner, I choose to have an abortion because the test I have had have shown that my child will be born with severe problems.

In none of the cases listed here is there any justification for an intrusive procedure.  Perhaps you could explain to me, who clearly doesn't get it, where you get to make this 'choice' for me?

enkelin
enkelin

Here is a clue for you.  Women have ALWAYS had abortions, surgically or chemically.  Even before that they would abandon infants in temples, open fields, throw them over walls and off of cliffs.  Read a little history.  Or even your own book.  Seems Moses was an abandonded infant was he not?  Just lucky to have been found and not drowned.

Jo Durocher
Jo Durocher

What will actually be recorded is that in the early 21st century religious extremists attempted to install an authoritarian theocracy, but that good sense prevailed and Constitutional liberties were once again firmly restored to the women of the United States.

Run-DMS
Run-DMS

 Brevity is your friend, Dale.

Dale Hogue
Dale Hogue

I read what you wrote.  It has nothing to do with what I wrote, but it was well written.  You might save a copy of it to use on another post that doesn't have anything to do with your post.

Nanabobo Fivesixseven
Nanabobo Fivesixseven

Listen, sir. It's like this: 

Imagine that you live in a nice, beautiful mansion. There's been an increase in crime around your community recently, but you aren't worried, you've always kept safe. Whatever your neighbors do is their OWN business- you know you're safe. Now, one night when you're sleeping soundly, someone breaks in. Even though you had an alarm, locked all your doors... Somehow this person was crafty enough to get inside. The most reasonable course of action is to call the police, right? So that's what you do. The police tell you that they've heard of this person before. This person is good at breaking into places, but is mentally challenged and not that great at anything else. They give you two options: Either you kill the person, ending the whole ordeal; or they handcuff this person to you for about nine months. During this nine months, you will be forced to endure endless abuse. The person will punch you at random times, squeeze and fondle you all over, and generally disrupt your daily life. You'll have to feed this person and basically take care of them. For nine. Whole. Months. After nine months, this person is going to (for some unfathomable reason) either tear open your genitalia, causing terrible pain... or slice through your stomach and rummage around. The doctors will be able to fix you up, but they won't be able to take away these nine months of torture because you weren't ready for this influx of crime. (For those who don't get the analogy, mansion=body, person=fetus, police=doctors/politicians, handcuffs=pregnancy, and ending gore=birth)

expatpatriot
expatpatriot

Or not, since most people don't agree with your definition of "human," "history," or "murder."

However, you have convinced me that nothing said to you will blast you out of your antediluvian point of view. Which is why it won't be *your* people writing those histories of the world a thousand years from now. Your kind will be thankfully extinct.

Dale Hogue
Dale Hogue

I get it.  You want the right to kill you unborn child and it's nobody business but yours and the unborn baby.  I don't even know you, but I do know people who think like you do.  As far as I am concerned you are free to do whatever you please -- drive your car way, way above the speed limit in the neighborhood where I, thankfully, don't live.  You can steal property that doesn't belong to you whenever you feel the need to do so.  You can start word fights with people on posting pages like this one even though these other people have exactly the same rights to their opinion that you have.  Shouting about your right to kill your own unborn baby doesn't make it right in the eyes of those who don't believe as you do.  Get over it.  Nobody is taking any of your rights away from you simply by writing opinions in these little posting boxes.

Dale Hogue
Dale Hogue

I believe that life is precious and that nobody has the "right" to kill another person at any time -- even in war time unless the killing takes place to protect one's own life -- then all such sentiment is null and void.  I don't make the rules, but I reserve the right to decide which ones I will follow when my own life is threatened.  

In most cases the life of the birth mother is not threatened by carrying and birthing her baby.  Yes, there might be medical circumstances that I personally would accept if it was up to me to decide.  I'm not a doctor, so I have never been put in a situation that was a matter of the life of the mother or the death of the baby she carries. 

Do I believe that abortions should be allowed in case of rape or incest?  That decision must be made by the mother, not by me.

Dale Hogue
Dale Hogue

Thank you for the informative post.  I appreciate the information.  You're very polite and courteous and I appreciate that also.

Dale Hogue
Dale Hogue

I don't recall saying that I should make the decision for you or anyone else.  I just gave my opinion on the matter as plainly as I could.  So, I sure can't explain why I or anybody else should make this 'choice' for you.  Thanks for the courteous reply to my post.

Dale Hogue
Dale Hogue

I doubt that women have always had abortions -- in any form.  What history book did you find this information.  Actually Moses was HIDDEN among the reeds by his mother to protect him.  I believe you will find that story in the Bible.  There is not enough space in these little boxes to tell you the whole story.  You will have to borrow a Bible or buy one in order to read the story.  Of course you can Google the story:  Why was Moses hidden among the reeds?

Dale Hogue
Dale Hogue

Is that what you believe?  I don't recall that this happened.  You say that these extremists, who had no authority to do so, attempted to install an authoritarian theocracy?  And, of course the heroes of your plot just happened to be liberal democrats?  Nope, I don't recall this ever happening.  But, it's a nice plot for you to claim happened.  I really don't know how I missed this.

Maia Cudhea
Maia Cudhea

Sure, if abortion and reproductive politics don't have anything to do with women's bodily autonomy....

Oh wait, they do!

Dale Hogue
Dale Hogue

Do you feel that I have to change my opinion because it doesn't agree with your opinion?  Why would "my people" be extinct and "your people" not extinct?  Why do you believe that my beliefs are out of date and yours are not?  Chances are that you wanted to disagree with me but didn't have the (intelligence or) information to back up your opinion as it relates to mine.  But, I'm only guessing, just as you are.

Dale Hogue
Dale Hogue

I don't know what your point is. 

Roe vs. Wade is the law of the land concerning abortions and I don't know whether either political party would want to bring this up in the 2012 elections.  The whole issue is a strawman problem because somebody keeps bringing it up on posting pages like this one.  The Democratic Party leaders realize that they might have a great many problems getting their Congressmen and women reelected in the November elections, so they have developed a phony campaign that a problem exists between women voters and the Republican Party.  The phoney idea is to sell woman voters on the idea that Republicans are going to take away a woman's right to kill her own unborn child and at the same time were going to take away her right to take birth control pills.  As you might already know, some of women have swallowed this phoney charge hook, line and sinker.  

Nobody in either political party is advocating taking away a woman's right to kill her unborn child.  If your read some of the posts you would get the impression that the Republicans are trying to gain power in order to deny women the right to kill their unborn children.  It is not so.  One Republican candidate -- the one who is not Romney or Gingrich or Paul -- answered a question from a Democratic Party plant in the audience that had to do with his opinion whether a woman had the right to expect the taxpayers to pay for her birth control pills. 

And this Republican candidate -- speaking only for himself and not the Republican Party -- answered that he thought that the woman shouldn't expect her fellow taxpayers to pay for her birth control pills.  Which is what the Democratic Party plant wanted him to say. That answer allowed the Democrats to take his answer and start a phoney campaign to accuse all the Republican Party candidates and the Republican Party at large of being against women controlling their own bodies.

Only gullible women have bought this phoney Democratic Party campaign, but that hasn't stopped the MainStreamMedia from writing stories claiming that the Republicans hate all women and are opposed to anything that women need to maintain their health and their right to choose whether they can kill their own unborn child.

Booboo
Booboo

"So, I sure can't explain why I or anybody else should make this 'choice' for you."

...which is why this whole issue is a problem. We can never really know what other people are going through. So although we may be personally be pro-life, it's not right to deny others the option to be pro-choice.

Dale Hogue
Dale Hogue

You've written quite a few words using phrases that connect properly with the phrases and words in the previous sentences, so one could conclude that your argument will potentially make sense.  If the reader doesn't understand which way you're going in this discussion of when life begins, then all the words and phrases you used have been spent in a near futile effort to make a connection with the reader.  

In my opinion, life begins when the life beginning signs are present in the fetus, certainly new life is not present before this and may not be afterwards unless the chance encounter provides evidence that a new human being has begun its journey through life.  This, in my opinion, is when life begins.  And this new life will continue unless its journey is brought to a halt by some action within the womb that brings about this stoppage.  But, the important fact remains that any new life must contain elements considered not a part of any new life unless at some juncture is created a natural process that brings about the normal union of body building elements.  That is when new life begins, not before, but only after this has taken place.   

Does that sound complicated?  It just might be complicated, but it happens all the time in various life forms and that is what simplifies an exact moment when new life begins.  This new life will go through the proper formulations that must take place before a recognizable human will come into existence. Anything that disturbs or changes this formulation could be considered an abortion and the new life formation is ended.  Most often this type of abortion goes on and nobody, including the potential mother, is aware of what is taking place naturally within the womb.  Using basketball terminology -- no harm, no foul -- and life's game, as such, continues without noticeable interruption being felt by the body in which all of this male female interaction is taking place. 

Now, wasn't that a simple way to explain when new life begins?   

Jim Salter
Jim Salter

Well, Dale... it's a bit more complicated than that, because if you stop and think about it, life never "begins" either during or after conception.  The sperm is alive, and the ovum is alive.  Neither are dead, and neither die.  So... life doesn't *begin*, life *continues*.

OK, so we've established that life doesn't "begin" at some point... so the next question is, at what point is it a *different* life than that of the mother's?  Is a single cell (the lucky sperm that penetrates the egg) sufficient to make the zygote now a complete individual, separate from the mother, with equal rights to the mother?  That seems... awkward, and odd, and not all that workable.  By that logic, cancer would also have "rights" - it's a clump of cells with a different DNA pattern than that of the host's, based on that of the host.  In many cases, cancer is even a merging of the host's DNA with other DNA (viral)!  But clearly cancer isn't a "person", and it doesn't have "rights".  Why not?

The answer, of course, is that cancer isn't intelligent.  Cancer can't speak, or read, or play a tune.

But... neither can a fetus.  So we're back to square one again.  OK - well, how about *potential*?  Cancer is unlikely ever to emerge from its host, self-sufficient and capable of performing in a play.  But a fetus just might.  OK... but you could say the same of the original ovum and any of the *other* sperm in the ejaculate it came from... or any of the other thousands of ova that the mother never *did* get fertilized, or any of the millions of other sperm she *might* have fertilized them with.  And it's OK that we didn't let *those* potential humans grow.  So what's special about *this* one?

There is no "right" answer here.  That's the complicated part.  It's all shades of gray, and it's generally all shades of unhappiness.  But it's also way, WAY too deeply personal to have the state mandate one "right" answer for everybody.  People will make mistakes... and people will make the right choices... and people will make *hard* choices, that they may regret, or that they may be relieved by, years later.  But they have to be allowed to make them for themselves.

Dale Hogue
Dale Hogue

How knowledgeable of the birthing process are those who believe in abortion?  Step one: A sperm connects with an egg inside the female body.  Step two: life begins when the egg begins to evolve into a living cell containing the DNA of the mother's egg and the father's sperm.

Step 3:  Life begins at the beginning of that cells evolutionary experience and it remains a living person during the entire birthing process.  If you don't believe that now, you will never believe it no matter what I write in this little box.   

Marie Seibel
Marie Seibel

 With Liberals...fairy-tales are just that...fairy-tales.  We know they are just made up stuff and treat them as such.  Also, we don't try to convince other people to believe fairy-tales... only facts.

Marie Seibel
Marie Seibel

 From Wikipedia:  The first recorded evidence of induced abortion, is from the Egyptian Ebers Papyrus in 1550 BCE.[3] A Chinese record documents the number of royal concubines who had abortions in China between the years 515 and 500 BCE.[4] According to Chinese folklore, the legendary Emperor Shennong prescribed the use of mercury to induce abortions nearly 5000 years ago.[5] Many of the methods employed in early and primitive cultures were non-surgical. Physical activities like strenuous labor, climbing, paddling, weightlifting, or diving were a common technique. Others included the use of irritant leaves, fasting, bloodletting, pouring hot water onto the abdomen, and lying on a heated coconut shell.[6] In primitive cultures, techniques developed through observation, adaptation of obstetrical methods, and transculturation.[7] Archaeological discoveries indicate early surgical attempts at the extraction of a fetus; however, such methods are not believed to have been common, given the infrequency with which they are mentioned in ancient medical texts.

Booboo
Booboo

First of all, I agree that people shouldn't be calling you names. Name-calling has never convinced anybody in an argument, and I'm sorry for that.

Second, nobody actually WANTS an abortion. It's simply that sometimes, it's the slightly lesser of the two terrible, terrible evils (I can go into reasons why if you want, but I think others illustrated them already). The real issue here is that women should be allowed to choose which, to them (and whatever they personally believe), is the lesser of the two evils. And I should note that for many of us, the argument isn't really about whether or not women should have the right -- it's about when "life" begins.

Dale Hogue
Dale Hogue

I now realize that aborting unwanted babies has been going on for a great deal longer than I ever imagined.  However, at what point did humankind realize that killing unborn babies was uncivil?  Apparently, according to those who support abortions on this posting page, some members of the human race don't think it is wrong at all and never will.  

I don't pretend to have THE answer, but I do know that I believe that killing unborn babies is cruel and, in most cases, unjust.  However, no matter what opinion I hold, I learned that if some posters disagreed with my opinion they let me know about it in their posts.  I've been taking some heat from those posters who disagreed with my opinion on this matter.  Some of what was written by a few of the posters was informative and I appreciated what and how they said what they said in their posts.

Dale Hogue
Dale Hogue

Thanks for the information.  I appreciate you posting it for me and others who might be like me who don't know these facts.

Dale Hogue
Dale Hogue

Thank you for sending that information to me via these posting boxes.  I do appreciate it.

Dale Hogue
Dale Hogue

Thank you for that information, I do appreciate it.

Jim Salter
Jim Salter

(in case my other post, stuck in the mod queue because it contained a link, doesn't go through: google "tansy tea" and search the Encyclopedia Britannica for "infanticide" if you want some references on pre-industrial chemical abortion, and on the anthropological practice of infant exposure/smothering/etc.)

Jim Salter
Jim Salter

Incidentally, Numbers 5:27-31 gives us what certainly sounds like an account of abortion as practiced by the priesthood in cases of suspected infidelity - with the typical "escape clause" built-in, since it wasn't too reliable, and this way could also be used as a farcical "trial" much like "trial by combat":

And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, [that], if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, [and become] bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.

And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.

This [is] the law of jealousies, when a wife goeth aside [to another] instead of her husband, and is defiled;

Dale Hogue
Dale Hogue

I was serious and did want information.  Thank you for providing me with this information. And I do appreciate that you didn't call me a name of some kind because I wasn't aware of the facts that you pointed out to me.

Jim Salter
Jim Salter

Google "tansy tea" for an example of early chemical abortion - and by "early", I mean "for thousands of years".

http://www.britannica.com/EBch... will give you a brief overview on infanticide throughout history.

Jimbo
Jimbo

The first recorded evidence of induced abortion is from the Egyptian Ebers Papyrus in 1550 BCE.

Dale Hogue
Dale Hogue

I may be uninformed but I'm not wild eyed.  I recent your remark, but I doubt very seriously that it will make a bit of difference to you and the other name calling posters.

Dale Hogue
Dale Hogue

I read the article you indicated in your very courteous post.  It was interesting and informative.  I appreciate your concern about whatever knowledge I have or don't have concerning this matter.  I may not know all that I should about this subject, however, that doesn't make me a fool, so I resent being called names in these posts.

Dale Hogue
Dale Hogue

I see how this works, anybody you doesn't agree with how you think is a dullard.  I don't recall calling anybody names during this discussion, but it's probably because I didn't know the rules before entering into the fray.  Or because that's not the way I've ever discussed topics of interest to me.

Melissa Limasse
Melissa Limasse

Are you serious? Do you know nothing about castor oil? Bike spokes? Wire hangers?

Maia Cudhea
Maia Cudhea

Yeah, abortion is a new technology invented by the evil Margaret Sanger in the 20th century. Except, oh wait, we have clear historical evidence of surgical and/or medical /heral abortion procedures dating back over thousands of years.

Jjkilgore
Jjkilgore

Ahhh Dale is talking about that thing Jesus did in his story book! 

jimcracky
jimcracky

 Dale, try this, with references and citations from many ancient literary sources... Abortion is not new and you clinging to the belief that it is without evidence makes you sound wild-eyed and uninformed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

EddytheCat
EddytheCat

Unlike you, we do not believe in fairy tales but in verifiable facts. Of course, to a dullard like you, because you seem to reject reality, they may appear to be fairy tales.

Dale Hogue
Dale Hogue

Are all of your liberal fairytales factual?  And you can prove they are factual.  How?

EddytheCat
EddytheCat

A date? Long before dates were recorded and centuries before the Bible. Of course, anyone that would be such a sucker as to believe the fairy tale Bible would obviously reject anything  factual.

Dale Hogue
Dale Hogue

And when did humans figure out how to abort unborn babies?  Give me a date when this happened.  I can believe that SOME MEMBERS of an older generations MAY have allowed unhealthy children to die at birth, but your other tales are just too wild to believe.  I'm not buying anything you're trying to sell me, so you might as well crawl back in your socialistic hole and play socialistic games with those who believe as you do.

EddytheCat
EddytheCat

You need a reality check. Abortion have been happening since humans figuref out how to do them. Older civilizations understood their abilities to maintain food and shelter for the existance of the many. Unhealthy children were allowed to die at birth.

Dale Hogue
Dale Hogue

You know that it doesn't say any such thing.  If you don't, then you need to take refresher course in the history of how the Constitution was written.  That a Muslim was elected as our president in 2008 certainly proves that a person's religion was not a factor in determining how Americans voted in that election.

Marie Seibel
Marie Seibel

 Where in the constitution does it say that the President has to be a Christian?

Muishuis
Muishuis

 Don't go replying to personal attacks. This numbnuts can't make a decent argument, so goes around attacking others personally with no basis for his claims (as you so illustrate above).

Now, I'll enter this discussion by stating the following.

I became pro-life the same day I had an abortion. My life circumstances and background dictated that choice and it's the only real regret I've ever had. Having said that:

I'll be damned if some pie in the sky looney-toons religious-high-horse crackpot MAN is going to declare a loosely-worded pile of shit law over how other women can make their own reproductive decisions.

Your religion is just fine and dandy until you start trying to apply it to other people.

Let's get this straight.

We are a Secular Society with a diverse population containing many faithful persons from innumerable faiths and sects.

Do not expect to be given the right of freedom of religion unless you are willing to extend the same to others.

(And not that he is, but who gives a FF if Obama were to be a Muslim... you judgmental wanna-tell everybody how to run their own lives types could learn a thing or two in pious behavior from all the Muslims I have worked with over the last decades. I would prefer my president to be agnostic or athiest, so long as he/she respects others' rights to worship in the manner they see fit...)

For those of you capable, I thank you for understanding.

EddytheCat
EddytheCat

Thanks you for your kind response and I hope that you live your life as a Christian by your deeds and lifestyle which is the best way to spread your faith.Words only go so far but being a living example is the winning way.

Dale Hogue
Dale Hogue

You post isn't as clever as you might think it is.  It's a little on the sarcastic side, but after reading quite a few of the snarky posts by some of the posters on this site, its a bit on the tame side, but you got your message across.   Thanks for your reply.

Dale Hogue
Dale Hogue

Oops.  I'm impressed by your religious biographical information.  Thanks for providing it to me.  Concerning Obama being a Muslim:  I read his books and I listened to his speeches. From the information he offered freely to the public, I came to the conclusion that he was a Muslim simply because that's what he said he was.  My mistake.  If I was as wise as you are, I would have been aware that what Barack Hussein Obama says and what he writes shouldn't be interpreted as the same kind of truth as we who read his books and listen to his speeches interpret the truth to be.  I guess I should've read between the same lines as you must have done.  Sorry about that!

Melissa Limasse
Melissa Limasse

Um... hello, in this country we have this thing called Freedom of Religion. It means that, above all else, everyone is permitted to practice the faith of their choosing. Regardless of who that person is. While I don't believe the President is Muslim, I also know it doesn't matter if he is.

Maia Cudhea
Maia Cudhea

OMG, President Obama acknowledges that Islam exists and accords it the respect and serious consideration due to the faith of the majority of the world's population?!?! Holy schnikes batman, we've got a Moos-lem here!

EddytheCat
EddytheCat

From the age of three, as recorded in my baby book, I attended Park Boulevard Presbyterian church, sang in the choir from the 8th through 12th grades, was president of my church highshcool youth group and advisor for my first year in college, had a three year sponsorship to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes in Estes Park, Colorado. I do believe that the Bible has many fine teachings but so do many other religious texts. Vietnam woke me up to the fallacy of any God. The President has spoken extensively on his Christian beliefs and he has never professed in any way to being a Muslim. That rot comes from his political detractors has no justifiable merits. But then, you semn to blindly  believe in most anything that suits your fancy. 

Dale Hogue
Dale Hogue

Read his books.  He discusses his Muslim beliefs.  I'm not sure you've ever been in a Christian church.  Your word is not worth much to me.  I don't think you've ever read the Bible.  Your remarks are way off topic.  Either get back on topic or drop your sniping.

EddytheCat
EddytheCat

Muslim? Prove it and give me dates.You have just proved that you are incapable of rational or logical thinking.,Remember Reverend Wright? The President was blasted for his Christian minister. By the way, I learned in church that Jesus was a liberal socialist but I don't remember the Bible ever mentioning progressive or the Democrat party.

Dale Hogue
Dale Hogue

Nothing like a liberal democrat, progressive socialist to makeup some story where the hero of the story is a liberal democrat, progressive socialist.  Nice try, but your story isn't true!  If your story accused the liberal democrats of attempting this, I would believe it.  It sounds like something they are attempting right now with their Muslim president leading the way.

EddytheCat
EddytheCat

Nothing like a Theocracy advocate to have a selective memory.

Dale Hogue
Dale Hogue

That's nice.  Thanks for your courteous reply. It was a little bit sarcastic, but I can handle it.

Rockycomet
Rockycomet

Not much to disagree with in your last post. The only thing I would disagree with is the monumental effort to vet the President in an ongoing and after the fact manner. I don't think people should waste that much time when the mutual cooperation of all parties will desperately be needed to resolve the countries problems. That doesn't seem like it will happen anytime soon given the great divide that has IMO been born out of the Bush legacy and the disproportionate dislike of the President and his efforts. No one will be President if we are going to turn over every pebble to find evil in him. Better to suck it up and get the work done....

Dale Hogue
Dale Hogue

I was not aware that the 10" wand up the vagina treatment was introduced to medical science by the Republican Party.  When did that take place? 

Figgy Jones
Figgy Jones

When you wrote, "Quite unlike the membership of the Democratic Party, most of our members do not walk lockstep with leaders who have dictated constrictive views...."how do you explain the 10-inch wand up the vagina? Because that's not a result of "leaders" dictating constrictive values at ALL....  

Dale Hogue
Dale Hogue

Snarky remarks are in the eyes of the beholder.  Sorry, that's the best I can do with this one!

Dale Hogue
Dale Hogue

A difference of opinion is the reason why people tend to flock together or stay away from those whose opinions differ from their own.  The next time you go to any large in house social event, notice that the first thing you do -- this is after greeting and talking to hostess or host at the front door -- is to look for somebody you know.  Giving opinions on this posting page is much the same; you feel comfortable reading an opinion with which agree and, if the mood strikes you hard enough, you have a feeling that you just have to cross swords with those with whom you might disagree.  It's human nature, I guess.  

Sometimes I get more of a kick out of reading the posts than I do in reading the article at the top of the page.  However,  I don't like the calling of names and the snarky comments that some posters write when they don't have the intelligence or information to engage in thoughtful intercourse with the other posters, but I've "learned to go with the flow" when the civil discourse becomes more heated than is necessary. 

The political party idea started almost immediately in American history.  The impulse to gang up on the opposition being too hard to resist, the first Congressional members hooked up with whomever they felt had the same opinions they did.  And, of course, the political party movement grew from that point to where it is today. 

Like most Americans, I don't know what type of person Barack Hussein Obama is, but I have made judgments about him based on what I do know or don't know about his ideas on how our government should be run.  I read his books.  I talked to teachers who knew him as a student at Punahou Academy.  I asked questions and I listened to the answers that were given by those who knew him best when he was a teenager.  I discovered that he wasn't as bright as the Democratic Party leaders want you to believe. 

It is fact that he tended to be a bit on the lazy side while being strongheaded and a loner as a student in both middle school and high school in Hawaii.  If he was so smart, why does he keep his academic records locked away from the eyes of the public?  Who has the most influence over his thinking?  Does he really have a puppetmaster?  Or is it just a political figment of the Republican Party's imagination?  Who knows the answers?  I'm quite sure I don't, but that doesn't stop me from asking questions about him or pointing out his inconsistancies when it comes to his telling of so-called "facts".  

I realize I drifted a bit off course as far as the topic was concerned, but I promise to do better next time.    

expatpatriot
expatpatriot

Aha! You've used your brain to distinguish between silly and serious, unwelcome and desirable, and snarky vs twee.

That's pretty much the same way it works for me. QED

Rockycomet
Rockycomet

Dale I should apologize if my comments are a bit snarky. Its easy to become a bit combative in these threads.

That being said you are either seeing the party thru rose colored glasses or are living in a Stepford Wives community. The Party extremism has gone out of control IMO. Since the Tea Party movement it is impossible for it to function with any sense of reason. Some of the retoric coming out of the mouths of party members I have associated with in the past invalidates everything you indicated the party as being. Those Party values you claim have been comprimised. When a Party member openly makes a statement "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell" that doesn't give me confidence that his aim is to fix the problems of the country. His single most important thing he must achieve is to resolve and fix the problems we face and nothing else matters. That is also IMO not the worst the Party members have been putting out there. I also find a bit of condescension in your tone of response which will result in an agreement to disagree. 

Dale Hogue
Dale Hogue

You contribution to this discussion is silly and unwelcome.  Use your brain to think positive thoughts instead of using it to write snarky remarks that have no value in this discussion.

Dale Hogue
Dale Hogue

I'm afraid that you've made another mistake and misinterpreted what the Republican Party stands for.  The members of our great party have individual opinions about all matters with which the GOP is concerned.  All of the people with whom I am in contact in my Email Connector Group believe that each and every American citizen has the right to decide what they believe should be done with their own lives.   These members do not take orders from anybody with whom they disagree; that is, anyone who advocates a life pattern that is counter to their own life choices. 

If you were an active Republican Party member, as I have been for more than half a century, you would know that your uncalled for accusation is not even close to being valid.  It was a discreditable accusation that was unpleasantly suggestive and should not have been made by you or anyone else who was informed about the values for which our Republican Party stands.

And if you have been as active as I have been in the Party you would have known that "The Republican Party" consist of individuals who are conservatives, liberals, moderates, as well as moderate conservatives and conservative moderates.  Quite unlike the membership of the Democratic Party, most of our members do not walk lockstep with leaders who have dictated constrictive views that may not be agreed upon by the membership base of our Republican Party.

The voter base of the Republican Party is not of one mind - it consists of many minds who are drawn to this political Party by a common belief in the freedoms voted on and adopted by our Founding Fathers and set forth in the United States Constitution. 

You indicated in your post that you dispise the actions taken "by the Party to force religious morality" and you would be right in doing so, if that is what the Republican Party dictated.  But that is NOT what the Republican Party has done!

What you accuse the Republican Party of doing has never been done in the history of our great Party.  Party members vote on a Party Platform for each general election, but these planks in the platform are nothing more than the guide lines they were intended to be. If you really knew how our Party works, you would know that this is so and would not have written the accusatory post that I am replying to in the post that you are now reading.  

By the way, the candidates of either political party are selected by its membership to represent the views of the majority of its members.  And I can attest to you that the view you've accused the Republican Party of having in your post has never been the view of the Republican Party nor the majority of its members nor any of its nominees.

Rockycomet
Rockycomet

You are incorrect I am a Republican of 40+ yrs. I am fearful of the trend to restrict freedom and right to choose ones own path in life. Entering into another persons body dictating how they should live and choices they should make is an intusion on the primary ideals of this great country. I certainly am not seeking to deny your right to an opinion and welcome civil discussion. I do however dispise the actions being taken by the Party to force religious morality to pander to a voter base while doing absolutely nothing to fix the problems of the country and blaming everything on the President.  

expatpatriot
expatpatriot

Err . . . yeah, one of the things I use my brain for is to distinguish between sense and nonsense. What do you use yours for?

Dale Hogue
Dale Hogue

I'm guessing that you are one of those liberal democrats who feels put upon by anybody you has a different opinion than they do.  So you feel free to charge me with something I haven't done, so you can post your criticism of me in these little boxes knowing full well that there isn't much I can do about it except to write this kind of post in reply. 

I'm sorry that you misinterpreted what I posted.   I was not challenging a woman's freedom to do whatever she wants to do with her life.  I was, however, challenging a woman's right to kill her unborn baby.  If she has the right and freedom to kill her unborn baby, I certainly have the right and freedom to criticize her for doing so.

Rockycomet
Rockycomet

Yes its called freedom......you know that thing you want to deny women cause a man like you knows better......

Dale Hogue
Dale Hogue

You are right and I was wrong, although I was only kidding when I posted it.  Sorry about that.

Dale Hogue
Dale Hogue

And that must have been silence or should I have read something in your post that wasn't there?

Dale Hogue
Dale Hogue

And you are the person who decides what is nonsense?  How nice that you get to have such a job when this posting area is designed to allow all the posters an opportunity to write their opinions in these little boxes.  I'm sure you are not paid for the valuable service you have taken upon yourself, so I will thank you for your insight and concern and be on my way.

disqsys52
disqsys52

If you post nonsense, you will be criticized. It doesn't take the boss to do that.

Maia Cudhea
Maia Cudhea

Read: "I can't think of a reply to your salient points so I will use my five-year-old's favorite comeback!"

Maia Cudhea
Maia Cudhea

Yeah, cause it's not like this conversation is taking place on a public comment board!

Dale Hogue
Dale Hogue

No kidding, is that how it works? 

Run-DMS
Run-DMS

Actually, Dale, ANYONE can take part in the discussion. It doesn't belong to you and Expatriot.

Dale Hogue
Dale Hogue

Did you get an invitation to this discussion or are you a party crasher?

RecallElliottNow
RecallElliottNow

Dude, this reply is even WEAKER than the rest of your silly rant.

Give it up, cowboy.

Dale Hogue
Dale Hogue

This is the only thing I would like to know: Who elected you to be the boss of the world?

expatpatriot
expatpatriot

You made a bunch of doctrinaire statements that are not supported by the majority of the people in the country. Yours is a distinctly minority view. You then projected those views a thousand years into the future (a rash thing to do in any circumstance) and insisted that your crabbed and constricted moral view would still prevail. You then admitted that nothing anyone could say to you would cause you to reconsider.

You are a contradiction of nature: a living dinosaur. And we all know what the fate of the dinosaurs was.

The ashcan of history is on your right just outside the exit door. Feel free to crawl in.

Now Trending

Houston Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...