Gary Trudeau hits it out of the park

[Rev Dark]

Well done Gary, well done.

[img]http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/11d535204ad0012f2fd100163e41dd5b">
[img]http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/12724b604ad0012f2fd100163e41dd5b">
[img]http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/4b42fd104ad0012f2fd100163e41dd5b">
[img]http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/48d9ca604ad0012f2fd100163e41dd5b">

[Rev Dark]

[img]http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/4a0bbc204ad0012f2fd100163e41dd5b]
Gaaaah!
http://freethoughtblogs.c...h-for-the-texas-taliban/

[Black Aeronaut]

Argh... I hate this bullshit.

I honestly wonder how these State Senators would react if their wives and/or daughters all got raped, conceived, and wanted abortions.

[Bob Schroeck]

There's an old joke which indirectly applies --

A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged.

A liberal is a conservative who has been arrested.

That said, I suspect many would continue to publicly behave the same, while behind the scenes pulling every string and paying off everyone they need to in order to make sure their own loved ones have the fastest, most convenient, and least humiliating care they can get -- well out of the public eye.

And those that are not hypocrites will act in accordance with the dictates of their consciences and ideology, regardless of the effect on their female loved ones.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[CattyNebulart]

And those that are not hypocrites

Isn't that a long winded way of saying Ø? (the empty set if yuku messes up the unicode encoding)
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[Bob Schroeck]

Nope. They exist, and they're the scary ones, because they believe, and will put that before all other considerations including common sense and common decency.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[Glidergun]

That said, I suspect many would continue to publicly behave the same, while behind the scenes pulling every string and paying off everyone they need to in order to make sure their own loved ones have the fastest, most convenient, and least humiliating care they can get -- well out of the public eye

You pretty much nailed it. Part of the problem, I think, is that they have a certain idea about why people get abortions, and, well, that's not why they're getting the abortion so it's not wrong. For some reason they fail to generalize.

[Morganite]

What really bugs me about a lot of laws/attempted laws pointed in this direction is that they seem to carry a fundamental assumption that anyone getting an abortion is an idiot, and can't understand plainly presented information.

Now, I work in retail, so I spend most of my time thinking everyone is an idiot. It's an occupational hazard. But I think conservatism is at it's best pursuing policies based on the idea of the average citizen -not- being an idiot. Heading in the opposite direction doesn't seem likely to end well.

-Morgan.

[Rev Dark]

Ending it on a sharp note
[img]http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/498d7c504ad0012f2fd100163e41dd5b">

[Morganite]

The local paper's opinion section had a piece that adds something interesting to this...

[...]sonograms are already done before every abortion. Agents of Planned Parenthood testified in the Texas Legislature that a pre-abortion sonogram is already the standard of care for a number of medical and health reasons.

If this is accurate (and it seems like it ought to be reasonably verifiable), then a lot of the argument seems to just sort of spiral into itself and collapse, because there's no additional indignity there as a result of the law - just a requirement that the pictures be shown to the person receiving the abortion. Which still feels like an assumption of idiocy, but it still seems relatively non-threatening.

Given the established time and economic issues waiting periods can cause (think they came up in a discussion here before?), *that* part of the law is a real problem, and if you're going that far there's no reason to keep any of it...

-Morgan.

[Logan Darklighter]

Wow. Didn't even know Trudeau was still alive. Last time he was relevant and funny was back in the 70s.

[Black Aeronaut]

Wow. Didn't even know Trudeau was still alive. Last time he was relevant and funny was back in the 70s.

Oh, ouch!

The local paper's opinion section had a piece that adds something interesting to this...

[...]sonograms are already done before every abortion.
Agents of Planned Parenthood testified in the Texas Legislature that a
pre-abortion sonogram is already the standard of care for a number of
medical and health reasons.

If this is accurate (and it seems like it ought to be reasonably
verifiable), then a lot of the argument seems to just sort of spiral
into itself and collapse, because there's no additional indignity there
as a result of the law - just a requirement that the pictures be shown
to the person receiving the abortion. Which still feels like an
assumption of idiocy, but it still seems relatively non-threatening.

Given the established time and economic issues waiting periods can cause
(think they came up in a discussion here before?), *that* part of the
law is a real problem, and if you're going that far there's no reason to
keep any of it...

Well, it's not just the waiting periods.  It's also the fact that the doctors are now required, by law, to describe the fetus in detail and also perform that vaginal probe sonogram - it's just plain excessive.
Next thing you know it, certain members of the Republican party will be pushing for vaginal probe sonograms on all women of child-bearing age every census year so they'll know exactly how many women are pregnant and exactly how old the fetuses are.  I'm pretty sure they can come up with a compelling reason for needing that sort of data.  You can't tell me someone won't try it because the Republican party as of late has been pulling all kinds of crap.  Especially after Obama was elected.
What I really, REALLY hate is that these people are making Texas and Texans in general look bad.  Really, the issue in my state is that the Republican party, sometime around the 2004 elections, pulled a fast one in redrawing the voting district boundaries so predominantly Republican populations get more votes in the state senate than the predominantly Democratic or Independent districts.  It is something that's has been fought over in the courts here for a long time and, unfortunately, it doesn't look like it's gonna change anytime soon.  The Republican Party has grabbed the power here, and they are not letting go.

[Morganite]

Next thing you know it, certain members of the Republican party will be pushing for vaginal probe sonograms on all women of child-bearing age every census year so they'll know exactly how many women are pregnant and exactly how old the fetuses are.  I'm pretty sure they can come up with a compelling reason for needing that sort of data.  You can't tell me someone won't try it because the Republican party as of late has been pulling all kinds of crap.

I'd say sure I can, since no one has actually expressed any desire to do that, and there's no obvious road from one to the other. Slippery slope much?

I don't know how that's supposed to make any sense unless the fundamental goal is increased invasion of privacy. Which is absolutely nonsensical.

-Morgan.

[ECSNorway]

The fundamental goal of actual Republicans is to decrease abortion, because to us it's (literally) murder.

The fundamental goal of straw-man "rethuglicans" in Gary Trudeau's mind (and many others like him) is to reduce women to chattel slavery, because it makes a good thing to accuse real-world Republicans of and make them look bad.

Needless to say, real-world Republicans find Mr. Trudeau's work about as offensive as a man running up and down the street in Harlem, wearing a hooded white robe, carrying a torch and shotgun, and a sign saying "death to n**gers" would be to your average African-American.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Black Aeronaut]

.... You ask many women for their thoughts on the matter? You gotta bear in mind that a woman getting an abortion because carrying the child to term poses serious danger to her life must go through this ordeal.

[Rev Dark]

The fundamental goal of actual Republicans is to decrease abortion, because to us it's (literally) murder.

Okay.  Time to call bullshit on this line of tripe.  For a number of demonstrable reasons.
The first is the crapfest of 'Actual Republicans' and 'Real World Republicans' which is a nice variation on the True Scotsman fallacy.
The second is that 'Actual Republicans' are almost unanimous in their support of abstinence only sex education - which has been proven to increase the risk to disease, higher rates of teenage pregnancy, etc.   A policy that can only increase, not decrease, abortion.
The third is (literally) hyperbole.  If you grant that life begins at conception, and you are pledged as an 'actual Republican' (rather than a dipshit misogynist douche-canoe) it is your duty to protect that life.  Have a single drink during pregnancy - you are a child abuser.  Flush out the fertilized egg during menstruation?  Murder in the third degree; perhaps manslaughter.  It doesn't even have to be a criminal case - you could be charged with in a civil court; you know where the aggrieved party could seek financial compensation on behalf of the blastocyst. 
The fourth is that the Republican party (I am sure they are not the 'Actual' and 'Real World Republicans' that you number yourself among) are virulently anti-contraception.  Doing their level best to ensure that actual reproductive control is wrested away from - well mostly women.  I am sure they have their reasons and it isn't just pissant misogyny getting in bed with Bronze age desert myth.  Oh wait, they are framing it under 'religious freedom'. 
The fifth is that making abortion illegal (there is historical precedence for this - but 'actual' and 'real world' republicans have never let facts stand in the way of their dogmatic stupidity) is going to lead to just as many - or more - carried out, in unsafe conditions, by unqualified practitioners.  The world of coathangers, flights of stairs, etc.  The numbers on maternal mortality in the pre and post Roe Vrs Wade world make for fascinating, if disturbing reading.

The fundamental goal of straw-man "rethuglicans" in Gary Trudeau's mind
(and many others like him) is to reduce women to chattel slavery,
because it makes a good thing to accuse real-world Republicans of and
make them look bad.

I don't think 'real world' Republicans need Gary Trudeau to make them look bad - at best he just shows their behavior in sharp relief.

"One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked
about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.
It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is
counter to how things are supposed to be."

Ah the frothy mix that is Rick Sanctorum; but I am sure you do not count him as a 'real world' or 'actual' Republican.
Maybe the 251 votes that passed the 'protect life act' (HR 358).  You must know the one - it allows hospitals that receive federal funds to deny abortion to women - even if the abortion is necessary to save her life.  Not a single 'actual Republican' in that group of shameless dickheads.

 Needless to say, real-world Republicans find Mr. Trudeau's work about as
offensive as a man running up and down the street in Harlem, wearing a
hooded white robe, carrying a torch and shotgun, and a sign saying
"death to n**gers" would be to your average African-American.

Wow.  There really isn't any response to this that would make you sound even more unhinged.  Other than to observe that in order to carry a torch, shotgun and sign he would require three arms.  
Your response is creepier than a John Ringo Ghost novel.

[Rod.H]

 Needless to say, real-world Republicans find Mr. Trudeau's work about as
offensive as a man running up and down the street in Harlem, wearing a
hooded white robe, carrying a torch and shotgun, and a sign saying
"death to n**gers" would be to your average African-American.

Wow.  There really isn't any response to this that would make you sound even more unhinged.  Other than to observe that in order to carry a torch, shotgun and sign he would require three arms.  
Your response is creepier than a John Ringo Ghost novel.

The sign's either on a backpack-style pole, hung around the guy's neck on a strap or the typical sandwich board thing. The flaming torch could be mounted to the shotgun like a bayonet. Then again ain't there certain places over there where if someone was dressed like that they'd barely make it a car length before being dropped - shot, tazered, bat/boot to the head.

I look at the all the previous and think you crazy Yanks and then I remember that thanks to certain vocal subsets of yours, the exact same crazyness will spread down here.

[Foxboy]

See, the sane, rational people of both Parties and of lesser parties, don't get on the news ... 'cause they aren't crazy mouth frothing idiots.

Mallard Fillmore is like Trudeau for "conservatives..."

A link because my source has rollover images for direct posting: http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/store/add.php?iid=35901
''We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat
them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.''

-- James Nicoll

[khagler]

Just a few days ago I was reading an interesting article in the May issue of Reason Magazine about how well liberals and conservatives understand each other, and the posts by ECSNorway and Rev Dark reminded me of it:

In a study I con­ducted with col­leagues Jesse Gra­ham and Brian Nosek, we tested how well lib­er­als and con­ser­v­a­tives could under­stand each other. We asked more than 2,000 Amer­i­can vis­i­tors to fill out the Moral Foun­da­tions Ques­tion­naire. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out nor­mally, answer as them­selves. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as they think a “typ­i­cal lib­eral” would respond. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as a “typ­i­cal con­ser­v­a­tive” would respond. This design allowed us to exam­ine the stereo­types that each side held about the other. More impor­tant, it allowed us to assess how accu­rate they were by com­par­ing people’s expec­ta­tions about “typ­i­cal” par­ti­sans to the actual responses from par­ti­sans on the left and the right. Who was best able to pre­tend to be the other?

The results were clear and con­sis­tent. Mod­er­ates and con­ser­v­a­tives were most accu­rate in their pre­dic­tions, whether they were pre­tend­ing to be lib­er­als or con­ser­v­a­tives. Lib­er­als were the least accu­rate, espe­cially those who described them­selves as “very liberal.”

Perhaps they should do a followup study: have liberals and conservatives try to tell each other their views, and see how often the person receiving the explanation sticks his fingers in his ears and shouts "Nyah, Nyah, I can't hear you!"