To: elc
I certainly don't support or condone having children outside of marriage, but it's not the baby's fault. Must we keep referring to the innocent one as a "bastard"?
18 posted on
08/30/2006 11:32:54 AM PDT by
seanmerc
To: seanmerc
Shame used to be a powerful motivator.
Perhaps if society started calling things what they are, the shame would make people reconsider before they acted in such a manner as to draw shame on them, or (what should be worse from a parent's point of view) the innocent result.
40 posted on
08/30/2006 11:44:31 AM PDT by
Xenalyte
(No movie shall triumph over "Snakes on a Plane.")
To: seanmerc
Must we keep referring to the innocent one as a "bastard"?That is the definition of the word.
73 posted on
08/30/2006 12:01:30 PM PDT by
frogjerk
(REUTERS: We give smoke and mirrors a bad name)
To: seanmerc
I don't condone calling the baby a bastard. I was trying to make a point.
74 posted on
08/30/2006 12:03:29 PM PDT by
elc
(Feeling the babywearing love)
To: seanmerc
I certainly don't support or condone having children outside of marriage, but it's not the baby's fault. Must we keep referring to the innocent one as a "bastard"? Unfortunately the child fits the definition of a child conceived out of wedlock.
Unlike Democrats who are self-made.
89 posted on
08/30/2006 12:14:17 PM PDT by
N. Theknow
((Kennedys - Can't drive, can't fly, can't ski, can't skipper a boat - But they know what's best.))
To: seanmerc
I certainly don't support or condone having children outside of marriage, but it's not the baby's fault. Must we keep referring to the innocent one as a "bastard"?It will only be a bastard by definition. Does the truth bother you?
154 posted on
08/30/2006 1:34:49 PM PDT by
USS Alaska
(Nuke the terrorist savages - In Honor of Standing Wolf)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson