Posted on 07/06/2002 2:31:54 PM PDT by B. A. Conservative
"Founded in 1996 by Jim Robinson, Free Republic is a loosely organized group of grassroots Americans who support our Constitution and look for honesty, integrity and honor from those in government."
What is our mission? "Free Republic is dedicated to reversing the trend of unconstitutional government expansion and is advocating a complete restoration of our constitutional republic." Jim Robinson has listed a great deal more worthwhile information and detail concerning the mission and a description of Free Republic. The current mission statement has been edited from an earlier version to account for past events. The original mission statement included language advocating the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, then President of the United States. Free Republic accomplished that portion of its mission statement by playing a central role in the events culminating in the successful vote in the House of Representatives to Impeach William Jefferson Clinton. For its role in the impeachment, Free Republic is an unequivocal and unqualified success.
However in evaluating and measuring Free Republic's performance with regard to the larger and by far the more significant role, "reversing the trend of unconstitutional government expansion and a complete restoration of our constitutional republic", I think the leadership and members of Free Republic need to refocus their thinking. By using any yardstick of your own choosing, there are few if any parameters in which conservatives can claim any improvement. And in any small victories that might have occurred, I would ask that you point out the role played by Free Republic in bringing it about. In short, I think that Free Republic has lost its focus on its most important reason for being.
Before offering my suggestions for getting back on track, I would like offer some thoughts on how and why we have become distracted from the primary focus as so eloquently stated by Jim Robinson:
The two courses of action most likely to offer a speedy and effective return to our Constitutional Republic are political and judicial. The left has used judicial appointments very effectively against the Constitution. Reagan advanced the task of recovering the federal judiciary, but we still have a long way to go in this area. Nevertheless, strategic use of the courts could be a very effective weapon in our arsenal. I think this should be the topic of some very serious discussions on how we can use the courts to attack existing unconstitutional government actions, laws and regulations. It takes someone to bring an action, and some legal thought to make such efforts productive. Forum shopping and plaintiff seeking are actively used by our opposition. I think this is an area where we can do much more than we have been doing.
And that brings us to the area of the greatest interest to us all. And it is in this arena that we are more likely to bring the quick results that we all desire. Well thought out, carefully crafted political activism can be effective. And each election offers opportunities to build on prior successes and to learn from prior mistakes. I will proffer that we have done little more than chat or indulge in wishful thinking. Our attempts at organized planning, coordination or unification of efforts, orderly assignment of tasks and delegation of responsibilities have been largely non-existent. All volunteer labor is hard to harness and effectively deploy. But it is not impossible.
Our computers and the internet provide the means to share and coordinate our efforts. It could also provide the means of choosing our leaders, delegation of tasks and responsibilities, and our most powerful weapon in recruiting new talents. Every human on the planet that has an internet connection has access to our materials and our efforts. It is a means to make our voices heard and to recruit more voices.
Everyone that frequents this site has visions of making their voice heard and making their vote count. Individually our voices are lost in the crowd noise. And even with our dismal lack of voter turnout, there were still more than 100 million votes cast in the last presidential election. It is difficult to know that your vote counted when it constitutes such a small part of the total vote. Political parties make a difference in the outcomes of elections by pooling the votes of like-minded individuals. Political candidates exercise power because each supporter transfers a portion of their individual power to the candidate. Coalitions gain power by pooling the individual powers of their members.
Free Republic can exercise the power of a coalition through uniting behind either common candidates or common issues or both. By acting as a unit, we can multiply our political effectiveness considerably. By recruiting and enlarging or attracting new members or supporters, we can multiply our effectiveness even more. We have proved that we can be effective. Ask the House managers and other members of the House how Clinton came to be impeached in spite of all the efforts of the media to prevent it.
We are approaching another election in a few months. Traffic on this site will increase progressively as we get closer to election day. Our political clout and power will increase exponentially as our viewing numbers increase. No matter what anyone wishes, the polls will be relatively close and the outcome of the election uncertain until the polls are closed. We will only have a good idea of the outcome when the exit polls and returns begin to come in. Before Election Day, the closer the polling data and the more uncertain the outcome of the election, the more our votes and our voices will matter. The more unified we are leading up to the election, the more our voices will be heard, and the more our votes will be courted.
We will have zero influence on Democratic voters or candidates. Any efforts directed at Democratic candidates will be a complete waste of our time and resources. Almost all directed at Democratic votes will have the same sad results. But our efforts directed at Republican voters and candidates can have a tremendous impact on the election and more importantly on the campaign leading up to the election. And surprisingly, our efforts in this election could have an even greater impact on the election of 2004.
FreeRepublic has the power within its grasp to achieve its mission and change the course of history. Organization, delegation, and unity of purpose are the keys to success. On another thread, I have offered what I believe to be one solution to the problem. There may be others. That is what the mission of this forum is about. Let's Roll!
Are you saying that murder of unborn children is okay? It is a personal decision to be made by the mother? That she has a right to decide if the child lives or dies? That the government has no vested interest in protecting innocent life?
If this is the case, then why do we have laws against murder? What makes it wrong to murder a person born, but not a person unborn?
Do you believe life begins at birth?
There are people who do things that are unethical to get druggies prosecuted, these people should be punished.
However the Constitution does set up a system by which drug offenders can be punished.
The Legislative branch passes laws that prohibit the use of certain drugs, like it or not, the Constitution does not give you a right to use drugs, Just as it does not give you a right to engage in sodomy (See Bowers V Hardwick)
The Constitution states the means that warrants can be executed, You need probable cause, and must list the person or place to be seized. If you do these things then you are not trashing the constitution, you are acting within the power that the Constitution sets up.
The Judicial branch has held the laws passed by the legislative branch as constitution. This is the job that the founders set up the Judicial branch to do.
The founders set up the legislative branch to do the will of the people. If the will of the people was to legalize drugs, it would have happened already, IT IS NOT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE TO LEGALIZE DRUGS.
The Constitution is not trashed when it's guidelines are followed to arrest people who break the law. If you don't like the law against drug use, you have to elect people who will change the law. Since libertarians can only get 0.36% of the Vote Nationwide, I don't think that is going to be happening anytime soon.
:)
Vince, Vince, they got away with it. Free and clear. I did what I could man. But you knew what sort of people you were running with ;)
Why would they? It has nothing to do with the Federal Government. I didn't say that the *Constitution* was dated, but that the society that produced it is long gone. It is being interpreted and applied by a very different people. That is what I meant.
And, if the ruling isn't dated, are you saying that such a case would be prosecuted today, in today's current social and moral climate? Heh.
Tuor
Give me liberty or give me death.
While the Senators debate the price of corn in 2006 and the neo-Cons plot troop movements on the fringes of Empire, and the legions of circus goers argue over the wording of the national oath, we will carry on, conserving that which is truly important.
Personally, I'm not sure when life begins. I don't think two cells stuck together is a viable living being, but at some point, that thing in the fetus *becomes* a viable living being. Since I can't tell when that occurs, I would agree that it is wisest to consider the entire process, from conception on, as off limits, just to be sure that we are not commiting murder (or condoning it).
Nominally, I think the woman has a right to chose what is done to her own body, but in this case, it involves something that, at some indefinite point, becomes itself a living being, and thus should be given the same protections, freedoms, and right to life as the mother. It is *on those grounds* that I support laws against abortion: because at some point it becomes murder and we can't tell what that point is.
Do not assume that I support federal laws against abortion due to my Christian beliefs, which are a seperate issue for me. It is because murder is destructive to society and the individual, and must be prevented or punished if it occurs. In this case, Christian beliefs and what is manifestly best for society, on a secular level, are one and the same thing.
On an individual level, as a Christian, I think God disapproves of abortion. He didn't give us the ability to pro-create so that we could medicaly remove the results of irresponsible sex (as it is overwhelmingly used for). If you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex, since most protections against conception are not 100% effective.
Tuor
Give me liberty or give me death.
Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, Harvard medical School, gave confirming testimony, supported by references from over 20 embryology and other medical textbooks that human life began at conception.
* "Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune told the lawmakers: "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence."
* Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, added: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."
* Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor, University of Tennessee, testified: "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."
* Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, concluded, "I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty ... is not a human being."
* Dr. Richard V. Jaynes: "To say that the beginning of human life cannot be determined scientifically is utterly ridiculous."
* Dr. Landrum Shettles, sometimes called the "Father of In Vitro Fertilization" notes, "Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind." And on the Supreme Court ruling _Roe v. Wade_, "To deny a truth [about when life begins] should not be made a basis for legalizing abortion."
* Professor Eugene Diamond: "...either the justices were fed a backwoods biology or they were pretending ignorance about a scientific certainty." The majority of scientists agree that life begins long before birth. Medical textbooks and scientific reference works consistantly agree that human life begins at conception. Many people have been told that there is no medical or scientific consensus as to when life begins. This is simply not true. Many scientists who have no vested interest in abortion believe that life begins at conception. Here are what some of the experts have to say.
"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spematozoan and the resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings into the union that consitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and Marks the initiation of life as a new individual." Patten, Dr. Bradley M., Human Embryology, 3rd Ed.,(New York: MCGraw-Hill)p.43
"Each of us started as a zygote." Moore, Dr. Keith L. The Developing Human :Clinically Oriented Embryology, 2nd Ed. (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders) p.1
"The (zygote) results from fertalization of an occyte by a sperm and is the beginning of a human being." (Ibid p.12)
"The Zygote thus formed represents The Beginning of a new life." (Drs. J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Friedman, Biological Principles and the Modern Practice of Obstetrics (Philadelphia: W.B Saunders) p.17
Take a look at the hippocratic oath.
I swear by Apollo the physician, and Aesculapius, and Hygeia, and Panacea and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfill, according to my ability and judgment, this Oath and covenant:
To hold him, who has taught me this art, as equal to my parents, and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage, and to teach them this artÑif they desire to learn itÑwithout fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me, and to pupils who have signed the covenant and who have taken an oath according to the medical law, but to no one else.
I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.
I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly
I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness, I will guard my life and my art.
I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are [skilled] in this work.
Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief, and in particular of sexual relations with both male and female persons, be they free or slaves. What I may see or hear in the course of treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account [ought to be] spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about.
If I fulfill this Oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.
The Oath of Geneva (For EMS Personnel)
I solemnly pledge myself to consecrate my life to the service of humanity; I will give to my teachers the respect and gratitude which is their due; I will practice my profession with conscience and dignity; the health of my patient will be my first consideration; i will respect the secrets which are confided in me; I will maintain by all the means in my power the honor and noble traditions of the medical profession; my colleagues will be my brothers; I will not permit considerations of religion, nationality, race, party, politics, or social standing to intervene between my duty and my patient; I will maintain the outmost respect for human life from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not make use of my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity. I make these promises solemnly, freely, and upon my honor.
The abortion argument rises and falls on the personhood of the unborn.
Lets start with scientific facts.
The Unborn human being is biologically alive. It is a life. Only the most Uneducated Pro-Aborts will not admit that the Unborn are alive, it has been proven as a scientific fact.
The zygote fufills the 4 criteria needed to establish biological life, (1) Metabolism, (2) Growth, (3) reaction to stimuli, (4) reproduction. This life is HUMAN Life. the human conceptus - that which results from conception and begins as a zygote - is the sexual product of human parents. Hence, insofar as having human causes, the conceptus is human. not only is the conceptus human insofar as being caused by humans, it is a unique human individual, just as each of us is. Resulting from the union of the female ovum (which contains 23 chromosomes) and the male sperm (which contains 23 chromosomes), the conceptus is a new - although tiny - individual. It has its own unique genetic code (with forty-six chromosomes), which is neither the mother's nor the father's. From this point until death, no new genetic information is needed to make the unborn entity a unique individual human. Her (or his) genetic make-up is established at conception, determining her unique individual physical characteristics - gender, eye color, bone structure, hair color, skin color, susceptibility to certain diseases, etc. That is to say, at conception, the "genotype" - the inherited characteristics of a unique human being - is established and will remain in force for the entire life of this individual. Although sharing the same nature with all human beings, the unborn individual, like each one of us, is unlike any that has been conceived before and unlike any that will ever be conceived again. The only thing necessary for the growth and development of this human organism (as with the rest of us) is oxygen, food, and water, since this organism - like the newborn, the infant, and the adolescent - needs only to develop in accordance with her already-designed nature that is present at conception.
The unborn are HUMAN. The old abortion argument that "this is not human life." is now known by scientific communities and even most abortion advocates to be false. There are still some uneducated baffoons who still hold to this premise, but they are easy enough to shut down.
It is important to realize that abortion advocates have been beaten on both of these fronts, I can list numerous sources from secular scientists and individuals that states life begins at conception. Any expert in genetics can tell you that the unborn are human. In fact you can take a newly formed zygote from a human and a chimp and any genetic expert could easily tell you which was which because the DNA identifies which is monkey life and which is human life.
Most logical abortion advocates realized that they lost on both of the above issues, they then retreated to this popular and most common argument.
"The unborn is human, and it is alive, but it is not a person until birth."
Lets examine this argument, and the popular arguments that stem from it.
A popular argument is this " The fetus is just a part of the woman's body, like her tonsils or appendix." The problem with this is that a body part is identified by a common genetic code, the unborn's genetic code is different from its mothers.
Every cell of the mother's tonsils, appendix, heart, and lungs share the same genetic code. The unborn child also has a genetic code, distinctly different from his mothers. Every cell of his body is uniquely his, each different than every cell of his mother's body. Often his blood-type is also different, and half the time even his gender is different.
Half of the childs 46 chromosomes come from his father, half from his mother. Except in the rare cases of identical twins, the combination of those chromosomes are unique, and distinct from even a brother or sister coming from those same parents.
Just as no 2 people have identical fingerprints no 2 people have identical genetic fingerprints. If one body is inside another, but each has its own genetic code, then there is not one person, but 2 seperate people. John Jefferson Davis states:
"It is a well established fact that a genetically distinct human being is brought into existance at conception. Once fertilization takes place, the zygote is its own entity, genetically distinct from both mother and father. The newly concieved individual possesses all the necessary information for a self-directed development and will proceed to grow in the usual human fashion, given time and development. It is simply untrue that the unborn child is merely "part of the mother's body." In addition to being genetically distinct from the time of conception, the unborn possess seperate circulatory, nervous, and endocrine systems."
A chinese zygote implanted in a swedish women will always be chinese not swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code not that of the body in which he resides. If there were only one body involved in a pregnancy then that body has 2 noses, 4 legs, 4 arms, 2 sets of fingerprints, 2 brains, 2 circulatory systems, and 2 skeletal systems. Half the time the child is male, clearly his sexual organs are not part of his mother's body, but his own. In reality, it is a scientific fact that the mother is one distinctive and self-contained person, and the child another.
A second point, the child may live and the mother may die, or the mother may live and the child die. The child is a temporary resident of the mother. He will leave on his own as long as he is not prematurely evicited. In may cases where a mother has been fatally injured a child has been delivered without complications. The mother's body dies yet the child lives. If it were part of the mother's body it would have died with her. In California a child was born several months after his mother was declared brain dead.
Being inside of something is not the same as being part of something.
One's body does not belong to another's body because of proximity. A car is not part of a garage because it is parked there, a loaf of bread is not part of the oven because it is baked there. Louise Brown the first test-tube baby was concieved when egg and sperm were joined in a petri dish. She was no more part of her mother's body when she was implanted than she was part of the petri dish where her life began.
The other popular argument is this:
" The unborn isn't a person with meaningful life, it is only inches in size, and can't even think, it is less advanced than an animal."
Personhood is defined by membership in the human species, not by a stage of development in that species. A living beings designation to a species is determined not by a stage of development, but by the sum total of its biological characteristics, actual and potential, which are genetically determined. If we say that the fetus is not human, a member of Homo Sapiens we must say that it is a member of another species, but this cannot be. Dictionaries define person as a "human being", "Human individual," Or "Member of the human race." What makes a dog a dog is the fact he comes from dogs. His father was a dog, his mother was a dog. What makes a human being a person is that he comes from human persons. His father was a person and his mother was a person, he can be nothing else than a human person.
Personhood is not a matter of size, skill, or development. Proaborts often argue that a child aborted in the first trimester may be less than an inch or 2 in size, or less than an ounce or 2 in weight. But what measure of personhood is size? Is an NBA Player more of a person than someone half his size? If a 200 lb man loses 50lbs did he lose 1/4 of his personhood? Scales and rulers are no measure of human worth.
Joseph Fletcher maintains that an individual is not a person unless he has an IQ of 40. British anthropolgist Ashely Monatague says no one becomes a person until they are molded by social and cultural influences. By this he means that more intelligent or educated people (like himself.) are more human that the inferior elements of society, (Like the rest of us.) This is a fatal flaw in liberal thinking.
If personhood is determined by one's current capacities, then someone who is unconscious or sick could be killed immediatly because he is not demonstrating superior intellect and skills. "But give a man time and he'll be able to function like a person." Give a baby time and so will they.
Age, Size, IQ or stage of development are simply differences in degree, not kind. Our Kind is humanity. We are people, human beings. We Possess certain skills to differing degrees at different stages of development. When we reach maturation there are many different degrees of skills and levels of IQ. But none of these make some people better or more human than others. None make some qualified to live and others unqualified. The unborn's status should be determined on an objective basis, not a subjective or self-serving definitions of personhood.
The 14th Amendment says the state shall not deprive any person of life without due process of law. Of course when this was written the word human was a synonym for the word person, and could just have easily been used. The Supreme Court Admitted in Roe V Wade that:
"Of the suggestion of personhood is established, the appeallant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus's right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the 14th amendment."
To solve the problem the court chose to abandon the historic meaning of personhood. In the years that have followed, artifical distinctions have been made by pro-abortion advocates to differntiate between humans and persons. Part of the reason for this was the scientific fact that life begins at conception paints the pro-abort movement into a corner. The old and still popular argument "this isn't human life." is now known by most pro-aborts to be erroneous. They realize that it is only a matter of time before the public (sheeple) learn the truth. The newer position is "Ok it is a life, but it is not a person." Once someone is committed to the pro-abort position, rather than abandon it in the light of scientific fact, they tend to come up with another line of defense.
We must not reduce issues of life and death and basic human rights to a sematic game in which we are free to redefine our terms. Changing the meaning of words does not change fact. The concept of personhood is now virtually worthless as an ethical guide in the matter of abortion.
The only objective questions we can ask are:
1. "Is it Human ,that is, did it come from human beings?"
2. "Is it a gentically unique individual?"
3. "Is it alive and growing."
If the answers are yes, then "it" is a "he" or "she" a living person worthy of protection.
For example, if a person murders someone else, the indictment will say "The people of the State of "--------" Vs "--------------".
The Law is the law of society and people. There does not have to be a victim.
Many crimes do not have a "Victim" other than the moral fabric of society, and that is the most imporant victim of them all.
I don't care what any of these people say. They're not God and neither am I. Their expertese and credentials mean nothing to me. I follow my own path and my own logic. My logic says that *no one can know* exactly when life begins. They can theorize, which is what scientists are paid to do, but theory is not Truth, and God has not given us a ruling on this matter. Therefore, as I said before, the only *prudent* thing to do is to consider the entire term of pregnancy from conception on as off limits. We arrive at the same conclusion, but through different means. My means rely on logic that doesn't depend on anyone's opinion, whatever their credentials.
Tuor
Give me liberty or give me death.
You cannot scientifically say that a Zygote is not alive.
Period.
The Scientific fact is that from the moment of conception, the unborn child is biologically alive.
Free Republic was so cool a few years ago. I started reading it daily actually several times a day, since 97. It was informative, funny, scary sometimes, but always entertaining. Now there is bad blood and it's not free anymore. I feel sorry for JR because it was his baby but now it's been taken out of his control. This sort of thing is happening in general to our country and I am very pessimistic about our future, sad to say.
Welcome to politics. Methinks you missed Mr. Dangers point, so I'll make an attempt at illumination from another vantage point.
Math 101
1. 25% Liberals
2. 25% Conservative
3. 50% Swing Voters
4. Needed to win an election - 50% plus one vote
Politics 101
1. Get elected.
2. Get Re-elected
Strategy 101
1. Pick a party to assure 25% of the vote.
2. Run to the center to garner 26% of the undecided.
3. Fame and power.
Let's take a look at another scenario.
1. Bring 1/2 plus one of the undecided to your conservative position prior to any vote.
2. Politician has no need to "run to the center"...he can get elected with his base.
3. Politician grows spine...does not fear the media, takes controversial stands, is confident he won't lose his job.
4. A conservative ascendancy.
Hitting a politician upside the head to make him do what you want only works for a limited time...until someone with a bigger bat comes into his peripheral vision. Wouldn't it be smarter, wiser and a better use of our time and resources to eliminate the need to cater to the big bat syndrome?
Yes you are.
I did not say that. Go back and read it again and try to comprehend it this time. I sure would not trust you after seeing that you can't even comprehend what you read.
Touchy aren't we?
Use FReepmail if you wish to send private comments it's great.
Part of the problem is that Free Republic has been infiltrated by leftists (Libertarians) who support blasphemy, drug use, homosexuality, abortion, fornication, adultery, prostitution, immorality, and a host of other things that All true conservative despise and hate.Part of the problem is people who don't understand the basic difference between supporting something and thinking it's none of Mommy Government's business.
-Eric
Maybe just letting state governments decide the issue for themselves as allowed under the Constitution is a pretty good solution. Roe was simply one of a series of bad calls for the court. But I suggest that you have no illusions about all of the states banning abortion. It ain't going to happen. Live with it.
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.