"Pro Choice" Peanuts Cartoon

__

It might or might not be funny. It wouldn't open.

No idea what happened. The image was there before. Lets try again.

It is funny. But not very true. You can choose to smoke, you can choose to own a gun, you can choose to drink as much soda as you wish, and you can choose incandescent light bulbs...

And as of today you still have the right to choose what is best for you when it comes to reproduction.

Apparently you can also steal copyrighted work for your own cartoons. Very bad form. We don't think Charles Schultz's family is losing any money over this, but we're also pretty sure they don't want others using his characters for their own personal agenda...or any other reason.

You cant choose a large (supersize) soda in NY - banned for not being good for you.

Until recently, you couldnt choose to own a handgun in Chicago or DC.

Incandescent bulbs are in the process of being phased out - I guess you can 'choose' to use them if you can find them in the coming years.

I think the purpose of the cartoon is spot on - there are many in this country that argue 'pro choice' when it comes to abortion but, when they turn to things like guns/coal/smoking/incandescent bulbs, the idea of 'choice' of the individual is overruled by the idea of the greater good.

How is an abortion, in any way, for the 'greater good'?

I'm not very vocal on the abortion issue, because I do understand a womans right to make her own decisions.  But I don't believe its a decision about 'reproduction'.  The 'reproductive' decision was made when they had unprotected sex and got pregnant (in most cases - I'm not lumping rape/incest victims into this statement).  The decision to have an abortion is not a 'reproductive' decision in my opinion, it's a convenience decision.  Its a way for the woman to get out of the responsibility of raising the child.  One reason I am not as vocal about it as some is that I believe that we, as a society, have created the 'demand' for abortion.  We have minimized the responsibility of the father, glorified sex, and then we become surprised when teenagers get pregnant.  We don't hold the father accountable (legally or morally anymore), so how can we expect the mother to end up raising the child by themselves?  My dad used to tell me 'keep it in your pants.'  He preached about the responsibility that goes along with sex, and he expected me to take care of my responsibilities.  I didnt hear that at school and didnt attend church much.  So, without father figures, we just continue to create boys that don't take responsibility for their offspring, offspring that end up being raised without a father figure.  Its a downward spiral.   

I dont know the answer here, but I dont think outlawing abortion will fix it.  Don't get me wrong, I'm pro life.  But like the issue on guns, I understand that banning abortion will not fix the issue.

You're right. Banning abortion will not fix the issue. In fact, it will lead to more kids on welfare and higher crime rates. The book freakonomics had a great section on roe v wade actually being responsible for the drop in crime rates in the early 90's and not increased funding for more police on the streets.

You're right. Banning abortion will not fix the issue. In fact, it will lead to more kids on welfare and higher crime rates. The book freakonomics had a great section on roe v wade actually being responsible for the drop in crime rates in the early 90's and not increased funding for more police on the streets.

===============

Other reports have called BS on that too.

Cap J T, you can start as to why the religious nuts , especially in the Catholic church, should not be allowed to control medical decisions :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl...ter-abortion-refusal

And furthermore, you can't "ban abortion" , you can only ban safe abortions.

Here people make the choice to be part of the Catholic faith, so that doesnt apply in the US. If you want an abortion (or to take birth control) outside of the beliefs of the Catholic faith, you must not want to be Catholic and can choose not to be.

Good observation on the use of the term 'ban'.  Kindof like 'banning' a certain kind of gun - you can only 'ban' them from law abiding citizens - those that want them will get them one way or another, its just more difficult.

Like I said, banning them will not address the issue - we have to change the way we look at sex and the expectations we have of ourselves and our children.  Then, the abortion rate should naturally decline because the unintended pregnancy rate should decline.

Seems like all of these issues - guns, violence, abortion - all have the same theme - lack of moral character being taught to many of our children.....

  The decision to have an abortion is not a 'reproductive' decision in my opinion, it's a convenience decision.  Its a way for the woman to get out of the responsibility of raising the child.  One reason I am not as vocal about it as some is that I believe that we, as a society, have created the 'demand' for abortion.  We have minimized the responsibility of the father, glorified sex, and then we become surprised when teenagers get pregnant.  We don't hold the father accountable (legally or morally anymore), so how can we expect the mother to end up raising the child by themselves?

===============

One thing that happens, is that people, (I won't say we because I and plenty more people have never agreed with it), have never allowed the father of the child to have a say in whether or not it lives. There are men that would not choose abortion, and have had to sit back with their mouth shut while their child is killed, and told it's not their "right" to say if it lives or dies. Sometimes even after the woman agrees to get pregnant and have the child, hubby ****** her off, she runs and kills it. I remember the news story of a doctor who divorced his wife because she aborted their child for spite when he wouldn't buy her a new car. That is what society has created. 

You can say the exact same thing about guns, yet they are still trying to ban them.

I forgot about the ny ban being struck down   The principle is still the same (as with the other issues) - many 'pro choice' liberals are not pro choice on many topics other than abortion.  Even if the law is struck down, the mindset is still there that we shouldn't be given the choice as to whether we can buy a certain soda, own a certain gun, smoke, etc etc.  

As for other countries - i doubt that the lack of access to abortion has much to do with the issues you stated above.  There are many things that come together in those places that drive those issues besides lack of access to abortions.

============

I don't know of ANYONE who is trying to ban guns.

Another right-wing lie, and I'm kinda surprised that you seem to believe it.

I don't know of ANYONE who is trying to ban guns.

Another right-wing lie

Feinstein:

If I could've gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America turn 'em all in -- I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here.

 =========================

And furthermore, you can't "ban abortion" , you can only ban safe abortions

==============

And furthermore, you can't "ban guns", you can only keep law abiding citizens from owning them.

There were several hundred guns listed to be banned in Feinstein's bill.   All semi-auto rifles.  No different than any other hunting rifle, except for the look of it.

Feinstein is on record several years ago saying she would have confiscated every gun from mr. and mrs. America if she had the votes.

Gun grabbers start small and then chip away until it's gone.

So, some of you lefties don’t believe your party is trying to ban guns…..

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-G...s-Just-the-Beginning

There are many, many more instances of this from liberal leaders.  I just don't have time to post all the links.  To say there aren't any top level liberal officials with an agenda to abolish the 2nd amendment is just living in denial.

Seriously, what rock have you been under?  There is a huge debate going on right now over a long list of guns they want to ban immediately.  Then, there are those, like Feinstein, that want to ban them all, period.  

You don't know ANYONE?  The statements by certain politicians show a much different picture than what you are seeing.....

_______________

just give up, seeweed, buddy. there are left wingnuts who want to ban all guns. all you're going to get from the "pro gun" crowd is quotes of those people, sprinkled with tons of "they're gonna take our guns". it's not worth the time to argue.

Unfortunately for you, the facts speak otherwise.  We are not talking about city council officials in Podunk USA trying to ban guns, there are high ranking congressmen/women trying to ban common semiauto rifles that are RARELY used to commit any crimes.  You can easily turn a blind eye to this as you are most likely not affected by any proposed bans.  If congress proposed a ban on homosexuality, I'd bet you climb to highest mountain to fight back.