Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Female aides fretted Franks wanted to have sex to impregnate them [For $5 Million!]
Drudge Report ^ | December 8, 2018 | Juliet Linderman, Rachael Bade, Jake Sherman

Posted on 12/08/2017 3:18:08 PM PST by Reno89519

Okay, I have combined to items posted on Drudge Report:

Juliet Linderman, "The Latest: Ex-aide: Franks offered $5m to carry his child", AP News, and

Rachael Bade, Jake Sherman, "Female aides fretted Franks wanted to have sex to impregnate them", Politico

Looks like Representative Trent Franks' "discussion" was more than a little unusual.

(Excerpt) Read more at drudgereport.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: arizona; rino; trentfranks; westernstatelefty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-104 next last
To: McGruff
Doesn't matter whether Mrs. Franks was infertile or not. Bringing a third party into your marriage is morally objectionable. Among other things, it deprives the child of his bond with his birth-giving mother (and often with his genetic mother as well, if they're outsourcing for the ovum), and deprives these mother(s) of their maternal bond with the child.

How is this "love" for the child when your very first choice --- your very first choice --- is to intentionally, preemptively, by plan, deprive him of his natural rights to natural kinship and bonding?

Commodification of both the woman and the child.

41 posted on 12/08/2017 3:46:14 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("God bless the child who's got his own." - Billie Holliday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Whatever is going on with the Franks, I suspect surrogacy is the least of it.


42 posted on 12/08/2017 3:46:16 PM PST by mewzilla (Was Obama surveilling John Roberts? Might explain a lot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Shall I go full tinfoil chapeau? How do we know those kids are the result of a surrogacy agreement and not the result of a hook up/affair?


43 posted on 12/08/2017 3:48:18 PM PST by mewzilla (Was Obama surveilling John Roberts? Might explain a lot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear

“Seems he was being very Frank.”

It seems like he was thinking with his frank....


44 posted on 12/08/2017 3:48:19 PM PST by Batman11 ( The USA is not an ATM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: piytar
You should consider an important distinction between "sexual" and "orgasmic."

Surrogacy is not "orgasmic" but it is sexual by definition, since we procreate sexually. It's called sexual reproduction. Having offspring is a major part, maybe the major part, of human sexuality, of being a male or a female.

Having children with anybody other than your spouse violates the exclusivity of the vows and the meaning of faithful monogamy. Moreover, surrogacy divides women up into separate zones for exploitation: the vagina, the ovaries, the uterus, the heart and mind where the baby-mother bonding is formed. Divided up.

Surrogacy requires a psychologically "surgical" detachment between the baby and the mother who carries him in her womb. It amputates baby-mother bonding, or --- to use another analogy --- it starves it to death. It separates childbearing from maternal bonding, and thus separates the maternal womb from the maternal heart.

No way good intentions can justify bad actions. Surrogacy is de-personalization from the git-go: it intentionally, by plan, denies the baby's right to his primordial maternal bond, and leaves a wound on the soul of the deliberately-bereft gestational mother.

It doesn't matter if the person solicited to the scheme of mothering-without-mothering is paid or unpaid, an employee, a family member, a fertility clinic specialist or your former girlfriend. It's de-personalizing per se.

45 posted on 12/08/2017 3:49:29 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("God bless the child who's got his own." - Billie Holliday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla

Ah, that gets my vote.


46 posted on 12/08/2017 3:49:49 PM PST by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o; mewzilla

See my post #40. Unless the claimed events happened decades ago, we’re talking about a man and wife in really late middle age, well past normal reproductive years, and he’s talking to young female employees about having his children.

Blech.


47 posted on 12/08/2017 3:50:25 PM PST by Tax-chick (I want to go to Colombia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: McGruff

She was unable to bear children. His two children were carried by a surrogate mother. She was implanted with fertilized eggs by a doctor


48 posted on 12/08/2017 3:51:48 PM PST by McGavin999 ("The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood."Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Reno89519
"...aides were concerned that Franks was asking to have sexual relations with them" and "A former staffer also alleged that Franks tried to persuade a female aide that they were in love."

I'm not quite as trusting as I'd like to be. Did the aides have reason for that interpretation, or were they leftists looking for a FedGov position who saw a way to take down a conservative?

49 posted on 12/08/2017 3:53:32 PM PST by Pollster1 ("Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
How do we know ...? anything, really. Only what he says.

However, since he has publicly claimed that the children were the result of a bought egg and a hired uterus, that creates an opportunity for blackmail if the real story is something different.

Someone gave birth to those children, and she knows the truth about how they were conceived.

50 posted on 12/08/2017 3:54:15 PM PST by Tax-chick (I want to go to Colombia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Ditto blech.


51 posted on 12/08/2017 3:54:34 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("God bless the child who's got his own." - Billie Holliday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

I don’t know. Ask Abraham’s wife.


52 posted on 12/08/2017 3:56:35 PM PST by Fhios (Down with your fascism, up with our fascism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Fhios

Ask her what: how much she hated his concubine and her son? I think the Bible is pretty clear on that, actually.


53 posted on 12/08/2017 3:57:29 PM PST by Tax-chick (I want to go to Colombia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

I must say I admire both your clarity and your restrained passion. If you are not still writing for publication, you should be.


54 posted on 12/08/2017 3:58:20 PM PST by Tax-chick (I want to go to Colombia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Well, that’s what I really don’t get. If they’ve gone the surrogacy route before, with every legal T crossed and I dotted, why skeeve out your staff by dragging them into it? This makes no sense.


55 posted on 12/08/2017 4:03:03 PM PST by mewzilla (Was Obama surveilling John Roberts? Might explain a lot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

OK, I’m glad I didn’t have a mouthful of soup while reading that! BWAHAHAHA!

On second thought, I guess that might be possible today in our Brave New World. < /s>


56 posted on 12/08/2017 4:05:00 PM PST by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dragnet2

Alice had a billion dollar baby. Says he got in a dime store. And that was back in the mid-1970's.

It must have been quite the "baby"..?

If that seems like a lot of dough, what to think of billion and zillion dollar babies? What's it all for?

57 posted on 12/08/2017 4:06:32 PM PST by BlueDragon (Reckless like a gambler, million dollar maybe Fighting like a dog who's been infected by the rabies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla

I agree, it makes no sense.

There’s sort of a sense, though, that surrogacy is “okay” when it’s to address “infertility.” There’s less of a sense that it’s okay for a 60-year-old man to buy children from a young woman because his wife is too old. As you mentioned, it’s much cheaper and more “normal” just to have sex with the young woman.


58 posted on 12/08/2017 4:07:05 PM PST by Tax-chick (I want to go to Colombia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
There are photos that appear to be of the surrogate at the linked story about his wife.

What does not add up to me is that who in their right mind would want to begin parenting a newborn baby at age 60? It makes me suspicious as to whether he was really looking for a surrogate. Plus, whey wouldn't he just go back to his old surrogate or her service if he found her through one?

59 posted on 12/08/2017 4:16:41 PM PST by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Reno89519

Yeah, that’s a step beyond surrogate, which I also disapprove of anyway.


60 posted on 12/08/2017 4:17:25 PM PST by Persevero (Democrats haven't been this nutty since we freed their slaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-104 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson