Monday, March 25, 2013

Dixon Diaz Abortion Cartoon

In case I haven't made it clear on this blog, I generally stand to the political right, with a healthy dose of displeasure in most of our politicians on both sides. I have a hard time stomaching many things that the Republican party does and for its close-mindedness and frequent hypocrisy. And when the Utah Republican party platform was read at our last caucus meeting, I had a hard time swallowing all of it. That said, I would rather participate in rectifying my party than disowning it, and so I stick it out, though many with similar views to my own have at this point gone independent.

I preface this post with that to lay the foundation for the discussion I would like to ensue here. I have recently found a cartoon circulating facebook. It features Linus and Lucy from Peanuts. (I'm sure if you google it, you will easily find it.). At the beginning, Lucy states that she is pro-choice. Linus then begins asking if he can choose things - from smoking to owning a gun to drinking large sodas. To each of these, Lucy tells him he cannot make those choices for various reasons. At the end, Linus asks what he CAN choose. Lucy responds that he can choose an abortion.

Now, I understand this cartoon is an obvious hit, and I do not condone slapping each other in the face. I truly appreciate the opinions of others and feel that opinions are like colors - the more colors you have, the more vibrant your painting can be. So I apologize to my liberal friends if you find this cartoon offensive. But I would like to open it up for discussion. Why is it arguably acceptable to restrict things we can put in our bodies, things we put in the environment, etc., but it is not okay to restrict harm to unborn children. Why is there this stark difference in things we should not be able to choose and the things we should?

So this one is open to all my liberal friends. Please share your thoughts and opinions - but please no rants or tirades. Opinions should be supported by reasonable, non-offensive arguments. Comments are moderated only to keep comment-threads from becoming nothing better than the facebook post I drew it from, which consists of more insults than information. So, please, explain, defend, and responsibly argue away!


  1. Teresa P. BagwellApril 3, 2013 at 8:40 AM

    I see you've had a lot of takers from the left.
    "No comments" says it all.
    It's hard to defend when the ridiculousness of it all is exposed so clearly, as in Diaz's comic.

  2. Now how about a cartoon from Mr. Diaz showing the pro-life side of hypocrisy.
    The Statement: I am pro-life.
    questioning then why are you for the death penalty? or why are you for wars that are not for the defense of our country ? or why do you want to take away health care for the poor or elderly? Or why do you oppose any limitation on the sale of weapons? -----Well you get the idea!

    And by the way does Mr. Diaz have permission to use the Peanuts characters.

    there is plenty of "irony" or inconsistent thinking to go around

  3. The death penalty is imposed as the ultimate deterent to heinous crimes that are a result of action by people who were not aborted(there will be at least one less person comitting murder, etc.).
    It is not the general concensus of "pro-lifers" to attack any other country with out just cause, furthermore to have our military "occupying"most of the globe, and providing military services to other countries that should, and could do it themselves, especially among those of us who are on the cusp of changing from R to No Party Affiliation (there are more than you might expect).Ron Paul made it through the entire primary process espousing this not-so-mainstream libertarian position, which would never happen in a Dem. primary (try proposing true, real, BigDaddyFedGub-limiting tax reform at yer next "progressive" shindig).
    There are many current limitations on the sale of weapons that are not opposed by "pro-lifers".
    Leftism is the most dynamic religion of the last one hundred years.

  4. Pat .... I am a conservative libertarian myself, and I'm going to go ahead and have a go at your questions.

    Death penalty? We're not all for it, but even for those who are, they will point out that there is a difference between a guilty life (criminal) and an innocent one (unborn child).

    Wars? Arguably, those who favor a lot of intervention will point out that they view it as a preventive measure to ensure no FUTURE loss of life -- maintain peace and all that. I personally am not in favor of military intervention where we are not threatened, though. But I used to be, and that was why.

    Health care? You're believing too much of the propaganda. Nobody wants to take away health care for the elderly, but this is usually what socialized medicine results in -- when demand is higher than supply, rationing becomes necessary, and the elderly will be more likely to be denied care. Most pro-lifers are not in favor of this, so your assertion is false. We don't want to take away health care -- we simply want people to have the choice on how to pay for it, what to pay for, etc., rather than a single-payer system, which puts too much decision-making in the hands of the government.

    And regarding guns, as clichéd as it is, I have to go back to the old saying --- guns don't kill people, people kill people.
    Or, put another way, IF guns kill people, then guns also save lives. In reality, people kill people, and people save lives. Guns are a tool used by both sides. But the problem with limitations on the sale of weapons is that, as government is given more power, they have a tendency to remove power from individuals. Once one step is taken, someone wants more. So as they remove the rights of law-abiding citizens, they increase the rights of criminals in comparison. That is, when law-abiders can own guns for self defense, the criminal has less of a right (real right, not legal right) to attack someone who is unarmed. But when the general public is unarmed, the criminal has a much greater ability to attack an unarmed man, which in turn causes more deaths. So arms limitations lead to greater death. If you're pro-life, you HAVE to support gun ownership for self-defense, or you are not being consistent.

    1. Hooray for a well-disciplined thought process for possibilities. It seems that the liberal folks have little room for well-disciplined...well for well-disciplined anything. Arguments to the statements from At the River will be merely rants.

      Thanks for the great thought!

  5. The purpose of the comic is *not* to expose the “ridiculousness” of “the left” but to further re-affirm the beliefs of its creator and other like-minded individuals. The comic pigeonholes those that don’t subscribe into a simplistic, self-serving and absurd set of beliefs. Since that set of beliefs is obviously ridiculous, those that share in the comic creator’s viewpoint are re-affirmed of their own beliefs. The issue is that there aren’t just two viewpoints (ie what some label as the Right and the Left) and, arguably, the “other” viewpoint presented *exactly as in the comic* is held by a minority as it is ridiculous.

    Pat’s comment shows how one in the left side of the political spectrum could (and many do) similarly attempt to pigeonhole someone in the right side of the spectrum. Likewise, At the River’s comments shows how the person being pigeonholed can easily counter. This shows how this type of argument isn’t to convince anyone on the other side but, instead, to create an artificial divide. People on the “other” side are labeled ridiculous and, therefore, there is no real need to examine the issue further.

    Back to the point, “Why is it…not okay to restrict harm to…children.” Although probably unintentional, this is another false choice. I don’t think anyone is arguing against restricting harm to children. Similarly, others try to frame the abortion issue in terms of a woman’s right to her own body and, again, I don’t think many are arguing against abortion simply to restrict a woman’s rights to her own body. Instead, they believe a woman’s rights shouldn’t supersede the rights of the fetus. Ultimately, in my opinion, the debate regarding abortion is about either where life begins or what rights and at what stage should a fetus should be entitled to its own rights; everything else is just self-serving noise.

  6. Well in the cartoon everything Lucy says he cannot choose is BS. You can make that choice (according to where you are) and you cannot always choose abortion everywhere you go. There are many rights that have been removed from society but it does not stop people from thining they have the right to or actually doing it. We need to stop the crap out there and remove the restrictive laws that are continuing to tell people what is good or bad for them. One main reason is because no matter which way you look at things you can always find a reason to restrict and a reason not to restrict. Worrying about harm to people should not be a factor when granting rights to persons. We are just out of the woods and we think we are civilized and that is truly laughable. If you don't believe it turn off your TV and Radio and travel around the US and talk to people and you will find that you will favor removing restrictions that make things safer for us and let natural selection take is course. We are being over regulated and being turned into complete robots and are being told what to think, what to drink, where to sit, where to Sh&^ and we are idividuals and our rights to free thought are being removed and being replaced with someone else's ideas of what they think we should be doing. Sorry but I have my own ideas and they don't involve any of you and they won't affect any of you.