Posted on 04/24/2011 11:29:31 AM PDT by Falcon28
Transcript via The Right Scoop:
But when you understood what made the Spartan men strong, it was the Spartan women. Because the Spartan women at the age of nine gave up their male sons. And their male sons went into a training that was called the Agoge and they stayed in that training for the next eleven to twelve years. And when they were finally qualified, when they were finally ready to join the ranks for the Spartan army, it was not their father who gave them their cloak and shield. It was their mother who gave them their shield. And when the Spartan mother gave that young Spartan warrior his shield, she gave him this basic commandment: “Spartan, here is your shield. Come back bearing this shield or being borne upon it!”
When Queen Gorgo, wife of King Leonidas, was questioned by the Persian emissary and she somewhat spoke out of turn to this Persian emissary, he tried to rebuke her. And she looked at him and said “Persian, beware, for it is Spartan women who raise Spartan men.”
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
I have done my part.
And people will say the same of the Americans. The flaws of Athens were in the people, not the system. The flaws of Sparta was the system, not the people.
===================================================================================
Reagan’s Toughest Decision
The Fresno Bee | Fresno, California | Wednesday, January 17, 1973
By Bill Stall
SACRAMENTO (AP) — Gov. Ronald Reagan says California has abortion virtually on demand today because of a breakdown in policing of reforms he signed into law in 1967.
He called the situation “somewhat disgraceful . . . immoral.”
Reagan said that signing the abortion reform act was probably his toughest decision as governor. If he had to do it over, he would demand more safeguards, the Republican chief executive said in an interview Monday. …
As the bill moved through the legislature, Reagan said he-read what he could on abortion and sought opinions from leaders in the fields of medicine, theology and law.
“I really had to sit down and say, ‘Where do I stand’,” he related.
Finally, Reagan said he decided abortion could be justified under the law of self preservation.
“Just as today we recognize the right of self defense, the right of a person to take a human life in self defense, I had to conclude I could agree to the right of a mother to lake the life of her own unborn child in defense of her own life,” he said.
============================================================================================
Gov. Reagan Disagrees With Ruling on Abortion
The Times Standard | Eureka, California | Thursday, November 23, 1972 | Page 2
SACRAMENTO (UPI) — Gov. Ronald Reagan is in “complete disagreement” with the state Supreme Court’s ruling that opens the way for abortions on demand in California.
Ed Gray, Reagan’s press secretary, speaking Wednesday for the governor, said Reagan “continues to be totally opposed to wide open, unlimited abortions which he believes can only amount to a license to kill.”
===========================================================================================
Abortion crusaders hail California court ruling
Tucson Daily Citizen | Tucson, Arizona | Thursday, November 23, 1972 | Page 2
Abortion crusaders today hailed a California Supreme Court ruling removing nearly all limitations on abortions as “a big victory.” Gov. Ronald Reagan said it was “a license to kill.”…. Reagan expressed “complete disagreement” with the ruling, saying through an aide that he is “totally opposed to wide open unlimited abortions which he believes can only amount to a license to kill.”
===========================================================================================
Present ‘Abortion Reform’ Law Is Unsatisfactory
San Mateo Times | San Mateo, California | Wednesday, June 14, 1972 | Page 40
In timely coincidence, Governor Ronald Reagan last Friday told a Sacramento press conference that he is dissatisfied with the results of the abortion reform law he signed four years ago. …
Reagan said, “The reform law was based upon policing by the medical profession itself. Committees — medical and psychiatric — were to determine whether the individual wanting the abortion met the requirement of endangered health, life, mental health and so forth. I think it is very apparent that people are literally getting abortions on demand.”
The number of illegal abortions before the reform was estimated at 80,000 per year. Last year, says the State Department of Health, there were 116,749 abortions in the state. They did not have an estimate on the current number of abortions.
==============================================================================================
Fetus Murder Bill Signed By Reagan
Oakland Tribune | Oakland, California | Saturday, September 19, 1970 | Page 4
SACRAMENTO (UPI) — Gov. Ronald Reagan yesterday signed a bill by Assemblyman W. Craig Biddle, R-Riverside, making it murder to kill an unborn baby with “malice aforethought.”
[NOTE: AB 816 of the 1970 legislative session defined a fetus as a human being. See Democrats Are Targets Of Political Mudslingers Around US, The Modesto Bee And News-Herald, October 21, 1970, Page 45]
==============================================================================================
Reagan Bitterly Raps State-Paid, Liberal Abortions
Press-Telegram | Long Beach, California | Thursday, April 23, 1970 | Page 1
SACRAMENTO (UPI) — Gov. Ronald Reagan said Wednesday night that at the present rate there will be more abortions than births in California within a year.
He added “a great proportion” of these abortions will be financed by Medi-Cal, a public health insurance program for indigents.
Reagan reiterated his opposition to further liberalization of abortion laws in a banquet address to 1,000 delegates attending the spring conference of the California Federation of Republican Women.
“What’s the moral justification in an abortion simply because the child is unwanted’?” he asked.
“What is to say someday we don’t decide to let the child be born, then make the decision to abort him.’’
The legislature now is considering a bill to remove all restrictions on abortions, except they would have to be performed by a physician. The measure is supported by gubernatorial candidate Jess Unruh and authored by Sen. Anthony C. Beilenson, D-Beverly Hills.
==============================================================================================
Biddle to Rewrite Abortion Bill for Reagan
Press-Telegram | Long Beach, California | Wednesday, May 24, 1967 | Page 5
….THE GOVERNOR told his weekly news conference he could not “justify” a provision that allowed an abortion when there was grave danger of the child being born physically deformed. He said that was only a step away from deciding after a person is born that he should be killed, and “only a step away from what Hitler tried to do.”’
I like the way this guy talks.
Nobody said Reagan abused the act.
That was rhetorical language, silly.
That doesn’t prove your point at all.
Again, I have never defended Reagan’s signing of that awful bill, which created what for all intents and purposes amounted to abortion on demand, because of its rape, incest and health exceptions.
I defended him because he realized his awful mistake and spent the rest of his life as a personhood, Fourteenth Amendment pro-lifer.
If Allen West would do the same, I would, if convinced of his sincerity, defend him too.
Although, him recommending that we somehow should emulate a statist Spartan society makes me wonder on some other accounts.
You know the real irony here? You’re doing exactly what the Romneyites and others do: using Reagan’s early error as an excuse for horrid positions on principles which should not be negotiable, especially in light of forty years of blood-drenched experience.
I think it makes my point very well. Do you deny posting those news snippets 6-7 years ago?
When it comes to Reagan, you are a lying sack of you know what. You told me I owed you an apology. Not gonna happen. However, you owe Ronald Reagan an apology, buster.
As I said more than once. Allen West is just your latest target when it comes to abortion. You want to undermine his conservatism by attacking his pro-life credentials. Again, you are no better than the creeps who for years have come onto to this forum and took cheap pot shots at Reagan and called him a liberal. This time its Cong West who caught your arrows of arrogance. Who'll be next?
Never would have thought you would have engaged in this lowlife gutter talk about someone who has done more for the pro-life movement then anyone in recent memory. A hell'va lot more then YOU or your precious Allan Keyes.
Me posting those snippets doesn’t prove your point. To prove your point, you would have to show me doing what you said I did.
So, far, nothing.
For what? All I've done is lay out the facts, as reported by Ronald Reagan and his closest associates, and the recorded history of those times.
And pointed to our free republic's most important core principles.
Your dumb attempt to link me with the Romneyites, doesn't hold water. Its weak, pathetic and coming from you, very sad. You've sunk lower then gutter slime.
Face it. YOU'VE covered yourself with BS lies and now you'll have to live with the stink.
Okay, so now you admit that you did post those snippets in defense of Reagan's pro-life abortion record.
I don't know if that gets you back your integrity on this forum. But for me, you're still acting like an idiot.
While I don’t have a link, and for some reason you didn’t provide one, I think I remember the context of me posting those snippets.
It was, I’m pretty sure, about four years ago maybe, not six or seven years ago, in an argument with Romneyites, who were claiming that Reagan was once a virulent, outspoken pro-abort like their hero. Which simply isn’t true. Reagan was ignorant, and was taken in. But as events unfolded, once the reality of hundreds of thousands of dead babies began to sink in, he turned around completely and got it right. No more exceptions. The child in the womb is a person. All persons are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Not Romney. He’s still lying.
That’s not what you said. LOL...
You and I have stood together on this forum time and time again, in defense of Reagan signing the 1967 Therapeutic Abortion Act.
And I responded that I never defended him signing the act. Which is true. And you started calling me a liar.
It's all up the thread. This thread. It's not like it's in some deep dark archive. LOL...
What this boils down to has more to do with Cong Allen West's pro-life conservative credentials and less to do with Reagan. However, I'm still baffled at your sudden turn against Reagan and your willingness to obfuscate his strong pro-life record that began in 1967.
Standing for conservative principles and standing for the Constitution is great. Lying about Ronald Reagan is below contempt.
Hey, let’s get down to brass tacks, shall we?
Where do YOU stand, right now? That’s what I would like to know.
1) Is the child a person, from the first moment of their biological creation?
2) Does the Constitution of the United States imperatively require the equal protection of the unalienable right to life of every single person?
After all, even Blackmun, in Roe v. Wade, openly admitted that if the fetus is a person, of course they are protected under the explicit provisions of our Constitution.
If you say they’re not a person, you agree with Blackmun.
If, (as I believe, based on all common sense and modern science) they are a person, does that not make Congressman West’s position unconstitutional, as I have been asserting all along on this thread?
Adam Clayton Powell
But, you didn't accuse me of defending Reagan. You accused me of defending the abortion bill he signed into law. Anyone who wants to can scroll back up the thread to see for themselves.
Now you're changing the charge, because you can't back it up.
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.