Scott Stantis by Scott Stantis
- November 03, 2009
- From Beginning
- Previous feature
- Show Calendar
- Next feature
- Current
Editorials A-Z Navigation
Small World by Tom Briscoe
Wayne Stayskal by Wayne StayskalAbout Scott Stantis
Scott Stantis is the editorial cartoonist for The Birmingham News, Alabama's most read newspaper. His work is syndicated to over 400 newspapers and has been featured by Newsweek, U.S. News and World Report, The New York Daily News, The Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, CNN, "CBS This Morning" and "Nightline." When Scott isn't creating editorial cartoons, he works on his daily comic strip, Prickly City.
© 2009 Scott Stantis - All Rights Reserved.
Comments (46) Jump to Comments Form
Corosive Frog said, 18 days ago
Nobody likes that, but sometimes it has to be done (tubal pregnancy, for example…)
Sad.
Ken Warren said, 18 days ago
Two new cartoons backtoback, the other one is better so take time to go look at it.
This one, well it is a woman’s body, and – up to a point – they have every right to an abortion if they want it. If it were men who got pregante it would have been one of the first things written into the Constitution.
Those of you who oppose abortion because of your religious beliefs, take a good look at the word BELIEF. It is something you believe, it is not a fact, or even a truth, it is a belief!
It is based on something you have been told, taken from a book that was written by hundreds of people over thousands of years. A book in which God tells his followers to tear open the stomachs of the pregnate women of his enemies and tear out their unborn child!
It is also a book that tells you to kill those who don’t obey the Sabbath, which would play hell with Walmart workers and patrons.
nospam4me said, 18 days ago
And at the same time libs are against the death penalty for muslim terrorists, rapists, murderers and child molesters. But kill the innocent, no problem for them.
Ken Warren said, 18 days ago
Well if you read my post you may see that it could be that we are just doing what the Bible tells us to do.
Loco80 said, 18 days ago
Ken, The bible says almost every law accepted in every constitution in every country worldwide. No murder. No stealing. etc, etc. A woman always has the choice of what to do with her own body. She can choose to cross her legs, or spread them. Once she has conceived a child, it is no longer HER body. We are talking about murdering the body within hers, and THAT body is another person.
By the way, I don’t really believe that you have read ANY of the bible. Maybe a few quotations of the old testament were misread to you. Jesus Christ brought us the new covanent between God and man, a much more forgiving covanent. Maybe a bit of the teachings of Jesus would educate you on the real picture of modern Christianity. It seems that you are behind us by 2000+ years.
charlie555 said, 18 days ago
Abortion is legal in America through all nine months for any reason. Most kill perfectly healthy babies that any infertile couple would be happy to adopt.
Pro-lifers have no objection to saving a woman from a tubal pregnancy, even if it sadly results in the death of another human being (who would have died anyway). They object to a direct attack on a child when the woman is in no real physical danger.
There is plenty of private money out there to pay for abortions for any woman who wants one. The rich eugenicists consider it “the charity which will make all other charity unnecessary.” There is no need for the government to make murderers out of every taxpayer. All this does is encourage good citizens to drop out of the economy in order to avoid paying taxes that go towards the murder of fellow Americans. Or stay and hate the government that makes them complicit in this slaughter of the innocents.
motivemagus said, 18 days ago
charlie, that simply isn’t true. You cannot abort through all nine months “for any reason.” The first two trimesters are the only ones with options; most states are making it extremely hard for even legal abortions to take place. And in New York – yes, New York City – I know a woman who was forced to keep two profoundly damaged babies because even though they were four-month preemies, they were delivered something like two days after the line, and the doctor was forbidden by law from telling her.
motivemagus said, 18 days ago
Ken’s right, the previous one is much better.
Roger said, 18 days ago
nospam4me is so right!
Liberals weep for all the poor terrorists, murderers, rapist and child molesters, making all kinds of excuses for them.
But they revel in the slaughter of millions of babies!
Liberals are the sickest, most disgusting, hypocritical, dishonest, immoral freaks!
Ken Warren said, 18 days ago
Depends which part of the Bible you want to use. Reading the Bible is not easy, I have read it four times – admittedly once was for a college course called “The Bible As Literature” – and can say it hard to read and even harder to understand.
There are several types of God in Old Testament, because it was written over many many years, and the writters varied God to fit what they believed at the time. Sometimes God is mercyful, sometimes he is vengeful, but always he is on the side of his “chosen people” and against rest of world.
So it easy for the wrong people to use the Old Testament to preach hate.
Loco80 said, 18 days ago
Ken, I have to agree that much of the old testament was harsh. The first five books of the laws are so redundant and hard to read, but in many ways important. We cannot overrule what is stated as wrongs, but we must accept that the new covanent supercedes the punishments for these wrongs. Is that what you were saying?
motive - many incomplete thoughts. Focus, and tell us what your point is.
Ken Warren said, 18 days ago
Don’t use the Bible to spread hate or use it to support hate.
True faith is having enough faith in your beliefs to allow others to have faith in theirs.
jclamar said, 18 days ago
You know, besides the religious views, there is a medical side to this argument. Abortion rarely benefits a woman. It increases her chances for cervical and breast cancer. It decreases her fertility rate for a wanted pregnancy at a later date. It has the same emotional side-effects as rape. But, hay, it’s all good as long as the men have don’t have to be responsible for child support and the women don’t have to lose their sexy figures. Who needs responsibility.
charlie555 said, 17 days ago
motive:
” I know a woman who was forced to keep two profoundly damaged babies because even though they were four-month preemies”
First of all, no women is forced to keep a child. She could have left them at the hospital. I know many couples who would be honored to adopt them.
[I believe your faith teaches you that every child is a blessing. I pray you will think about the implications of calling a human being damaged.]
A woman who wants an abortion can simply travel to a state where abortionists are willing to kill fetuses through all nine months. I live within an hours drive of one such abortuary.
Yes, states make it more difficult for a woman who initially wanted her child to abort just because the child will be more of a challenge. Right now, being wanted makes a fetus a person in America. A ridiculous criteria, but there all the same.
Magnaut
said,
17 days ago
so if you have a tenant you don’t like you should kill him……..you Wrighties are sounding right
charlie555 said, 17 days ago
There is only one reason for government leaders to fund something that private citizens are willing to fund themselves - TO FORCE ALL CITIZENS TO BE PARTY TO THEIR AGENDA.
This is the death of FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE - the basic human right of every man.
Ken Warren said, 17 days ago
charlie555 It may have been a slip of tongue, but I noticed you end with the statement: :The basic human right of every man!” So woman have no rights? Or is it that they are just too unimportant to mention?
dtroutma said, 17 days ago
My first thought was “star child”, and the realization that the vision of Clark for human intellect is not realized.
When there is no such thing in the U.S. as a child in an orphanage, or foster care, I will believe the argument (myth) that throngs are waiting out there to adopt all “unwanted” children.
When childbirth results in ZERO maternal deaths, and all births are “natural” with zero C-sections, and there are no lethal genetic defects, or damage from drug taking during pregnancy, the phony “medical argument” against abortion might be acceptable.
When there is no poverty in the world leading to famine, or abuse of children, or negative effects from overpopulation, the “moral stance” that EVERY fertilized egg is, or must become a human, might win an impossible argument.
I also agree with Ken. Isn’t it amazing how “men” make the biggest fuss, and rarely address “Man” to include “women” in the decision process, or even status as human, let alone legitimately endowed with free will?
lalas said, 17 days ago
Roger –
“Liberals weep for all the poor terrorists, murderers, rapist and child molesters, making all kinds of excuses for them.”
No we don’t.
Anyone rightfully convicted of any of those crimes deserves to be punished. The problem is when they are WRONGFULLY convicted.
Stop conflating the two. Guantanamo has a number of wrongfully imprisoned people… those are the only ones we quibble over.
Get a grip.
4uk4ata said, 17 days ago
Does the actual bill (in its current form) fund abortions anyway?
motivemagus said, 17 days ago
charlie, I still question your assertion that you can legally abort a fetus with no requirements at 9 months. And I have no idea what state you are living in, but even Massachusetts has no such law. Roe v. Wade only established it in the first two trimesters.
As for my friend, she desperately wanted children and was trying to have them. I didn’t state this properly, and left out the most important part: had it not been for advanced medicine, she probably would have miscarried naturally – and in accordance with Nature or God, as you like – instead, the doctors worked hard to save the lives of babies who would have died under normal circumstances. The doctors knew d@mned well she would deliver two children who were essentially brain-dead, and didn’t tell her, because they were forbidden to. She was NOT given a choice to miscarry naturally. She was forced to give birth to these children – whom she kept – who will never be anything like human beings mentally. I promise you there isn’t a long line of people waiting to adopt children like this.
As a side note, my late cousin had Downs Syndrome and was one of the first in the country to be “mainstreamed” and kept at home by his family instead of sent off to an institution. I’m fully in favor of that. I’d like to think that my wife and I would have done the same, had we been presented with such a choice. My friend was given no choice.
charlie555 said, 17 days ago
motive
God allowed these children to be born. You still seem to imply this was a bad thing. Life is always good. In spite of their mental capacity. they have the same dignity as any man and, like all men, will receive perfect knowledge when they die.
This mother is working out her salvation by caring for these two children of God. He made the choice for her, through the “incompetency” of her doctors and she responded to His call. She has the gift of a truly heroic life if she accepts it with grace.
She had the choice to trust doctors rather than God. She obviously freely took the medicine (or procedures) to prevent miscarriage rather than leave her children in the hands of God. He answered her prayer in the way which will most benefit her soul, which is all that counts in the end.
Abortion through all nine months:
http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10215
charlie555 said, 17 days ago
Ken:
Man is the name given to both the man and the woman by God. His covenant is with MAN, both male and female. I use the word in this traditional meaning.
Woman (literally - out of man) is the name given to the female by the man, which indicates he is the source of her being.
I find it truly comical that feminists prefer the name given them by the man, rather than the name given them by God which reflects their equality with men.
motivemagus said, 17 days ago
charlie, God allows everything to happen by your definition. I am not a Calvinist or believer in predestination. I believe God granted us free will, which means things happen that God permitted but did not dictate. So we’re not going to agree on this one. Catholics like myself believe that people should have the right to die with dignity, meaning not being kept alive by artificially hooked up to machines. That applies to infants as much as to the aged.
I am quite skeptical about your link, given that studies I have seen indicate that in fact women have had considerably reduced access to abortion in this country, including virtually zero access in some states, let alone “through all nine months.” I will endeavor to find some facts on the subject.
As for Man versus Woman: Man has gender associated with it, so it is not a perfect generic in grammatical terms. (EnglishTeacher, where are you?) That’s why women object to being called men, since it also assumes that being male is the norm, and being female is the exception.
Biologically, it’s actually the opposite! The generic mammal is female until the release of testosterone and associated hormones relatively late in fetal development.
Ken Warren said, 17 days ago
charlie: First - Thanks for replying, even if we disagree we owe it to the other person to reply.
First, if you realize it or not, you assume God is male, where I believe God is all giving life force and neither male or felmale.
Two the sad fact is that the Bible was written by men, and at a time when it would never occure to them that women were equal, had any rights, or that the God they were writting about would even think of women.
charlie555 said, 17 days ago
The number one definition of MAN in many dictionaries (before the feminists changed then in the 70’s) was MANKIND.
Early bibles stated that God placed two men in the Garden (Adam and Eve).
Before the feminists began their war on the English language, it was rare to ever hear HUMAN used as a noun (as it is now in order to avoid using MAN and MANKIND).
The use of HUMAN (literally dirt man) as a noun is an attack on the Judeo-Christian tradition. God did not name us HUMAN. He has no covenant with HUMAN. HUMAN is the name Man gave himself - a man with no need of God, and a woman with no need of man.
charlie555 said, 17 days ago
Ken
I can’t argue with a non-Christian concept of God. After all, we are free to believe anything we want. I accept the Christian revelation that teaches the Godhead is neither male nor female. However, He is masculine (the Giver of Life) and not feminine (a receiver of life).
So, when He became Man, He was revealed as a man and not a woman, because, in the material world, man represent the Giver of Life in regard to woman, the receiver of life.
If the Bible originated in mere man, I would consider it opinion also. But I believe it was narrated by God. So our conversation is limited.
deadheadzan
said,
17 days ago
The bible was written by men. Power writes history.
MurphyHerself said, 17 days ago
From what I hear, there is nothing in the bill to fund abortions, so quit crying about that.
Fetuses can be damaged through drugs and other “insults” to the cells. In the wild they are born and left for dead. Remember survival of the fittest? And it would still be that for humans except for the intervention of science to save our precious children, all… how many billions are there now?
Anybody who wants to save a baby from an abortion can jolly well step up to the plate and pay for the health care of said baby and adopt it upon birth. The birth mother MUST NOT be given any information of the whereabouts of the child so she cannot come back later and try to claim it as hers as she has already abandoned it. The adoptive parents must be told the health history of the parents to give proper care to the child.
There are no more powerful words in the English language than Madam Chairman.
charlie555 said, 17 days ago
motive
Here are the stats of one late term abortionist.
http://www.abortiontv.com/Methods/GeorgeTiller.htm
Ken Warren said, 17 days ago
GIVER OF LIFE?
If you believe the bible when God (who created heaven and earth and all the creatures therein) wanted to place his son on Earth he didn’t just make him up like he had done with Adam, and place him on the Earth. What God had to do is was find a woman!
Corosive Frog said, 17 days ago
Abortion benifits no woman. It is not a good thing, it is a lesser of two evils.
Also, all unwanted pregnancies aren’t systemically terminated, not even most of them. I was not wanted. Most of my nephews had nieces were not wanted either and yet they are alive.
I’m in a math class in NBCC with several of those single mothers righties call sluts in other topics. Are’nt they the saints who chosed to keep their child in this one?
Corosive Frog said, 17 days ago
An another thing; abortion is more justifiable than the death penalty in some cases because we can do otherwise than kill the inmate (who can very well be innocent) but in tubal pregnancies, or in the brain dead fetuses (not ”damaged”, b-r-a-i-n d-e-a-d.)
d_legendary1 said, 17 days ago
Its funny how the right to lifers care about the fetus yet when its born from a crack head or a prostitute it is left to fend for itself via foster homes.
“But D, those don’t count seeing as they came from really bad people”.
So the best option is to let them grow up in foster homes and allow them to grow up as criminals and/or prostitutes?
You guys have your priorities messed up.
You’re alive, we don’t really care about you.
motivemagus said, 17 days ago
charlie, I am hardly going to take a strongly pro-life website as a legitimate source on George Tiller, of all people.
Obamascares said, 17 days ago
Any one here remember Dr Tiller in Arkansas? He was known as TILLER the KILLER because for $5000 he would abort full term babies; so yes, full term abortions are legal in some states.
d_legendary1 said, 17 days ago
@Scaredguy Where? In Yenemsvelle?
4uk4ata said, 16 days ago
“He was revealed as a man and not a woman, because, in the material world, man represent the Giver of Life in regard to woman, the receiver of life.”
I can’t quite agree with that. If you look at it simply from the point of sexual intercourse, you can think of the woman as the receiver. However, if you think of it from the viewpoint of birth, then clearly the mother is the “giver”, and the child is the “receiver”. We can’t talk about anyone giving life without talking about birth imo.
Now, if you want to put it in religious terms, God is clearly the giver of life - but all mankind is the “receiver”.
charlie555 said, 16 days ago
^Yes, all Mankind is feminine in terms of their receiving souls. Man(kind) is the Bride of God. A man is spiritually feminine and bodily masculine (XY). A woman is spiritually feminine and bodily feminine (XX).
The present culture war against marriage is Satan’s war against God being waged through the heresies of homosexualism and feminism. The Father of Lies hates the Man/Woman bodily covenant of marriage because it is a catechism of the God/Man spiritual covenant of salvation.
A woman bears (carries) and feeds a child in the womb. She is not the source of his existence. She receives fertilization from the man. The child receives life from God.
charlie555 said, 16 days ago
motive
I supposed I should not be surprised that even an educated Catholic does not know about the abortionists (like the late Tiller) that legally kill healthy, viable, fetuses. All they need is a psychologist on their payroll to witness that the baby is a threat to the mental welfare of the mother.
This is what the whole controversy over partial birth abortion is about - the insane killing of viable babies in the birth canal because they are protected by law once the head emerges from the cervix.
Here is a description of the procedure:
Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby’s leg with forceps.
The baby’s leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
The abortionist delivers the baby’s entire body, except for the head.
The abortionist jams scissors into the baby’s skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole…
The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child’s brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/partialbirth.html#showit
Remember, these are babies who would easily survive on their own or in an incubator if the abortionist simply completed the delivery.
Both houses of Congress voted to ban this procedure, but President Obama vetoed their bill.
So it goes on.
DrCanuck said, 16 days ago
charlie555 says: “Man(kind) is the Bride of God. A man is spiritually feminine.”
DrCanuck plays psychologist: Are you telling us you have an unrequited urge to have sex with your god (a male)? I thought you said homosexuality was a bad thing.
motivemagus said, 16 days ago
charlie, you are overstating the case. Notably. I am not a clinical psychologist, but any who rubber-stamped late-term abortions should have his or her license yanked. Have you looked at the percentage of abortions attributable to this?
charlie555 said, 16 days ago
DrC
Need I remind you there are no material bodies in Heaven?
charlie555 said, 16 days ago
motive
Of course they should have their licenses yanked. 71% of Americans are horrified that this particularly gruesome form of feticide is taking place in their land. Both houses of congress tried to end this abomination.
President Obama vetoed the bill. Case closed. No one can legally touch these agents of death until Obama leaves office.
Does it really matter how many of these procedures are done? Isn’t one enough? It is documented that Dr. Tiller performed hundreds per year.
What matters is that this is legal in America.
DrCanuck said, 15 days ago
charlie, need I remind you there is no heaven?
charlie555 said, 13 days ago
DrC: Is your favorite song, the driveling ”Imagine”?