Posted on 04/21/2007 6:42:25 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
We've got some real challenges facing us. FR was established to fight against government corruption, overstepping, and abuse and to fight for a return to the limited constitutional government as envisioned and set forth by our founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and other founding documents.
One of the biggest cases of government corruption, overstepping and abuse that I know of is its disgraceful headlong slide into a socialist hell. Our founders never intended for abortion to be the law of the land. And they never intended the Supreme Court to be a legislative body. They never intended God or religion to be written out of public life. They never intended government to be used to deny God's existence or for government to be used to force sexual perversions onto our society or into our children's education curriculum. They never intend for government to disarm the people. They never intended for government to set up sanctuary cities for illegals. They never intended government to rule over the people and or to take their earnings or private property or to deprive them of their constitutional rights to free speech, free religion, private property, due process, etc. They never intended government to seize the private property of private citizens through draconian asset forfeiture laws or laws allowing government to take private property from lawful owners to give to developers. Or to seize wealth and redistribute it to others. Or to provide government forced health insurance or government forced retirement systems.
All of the above are examples of ever expanding socialism and tyranny brought to us by liberals/liberalism.
FR fights against the liberals/Democrats in all of these areas and always will. Now if liberalism infiltrates into the Republican party and Republicans start promoting all this socialist garbage, do you think that I or FR will suddenly stop fighting against it? Do you think I'm going to bow down and accept abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, global warming, illegal alien lawbreakers, gun control, asset forfeiture, socialism, tyranny, totalitarianism, etc, etc, etc, just so some fancy New York liberal lawyer can become president from the Republican party?
Do you really expect me to do that?
I read your whole freaking post. And after reading your whole freaking post I answered you in the only way your post could be answered. There is no choice available to take the baby out and put it in an artificial womb. You are using an ignorant straw man in your argument to try and twist my answer to be unreasonable. If there was such a procedure then it wouldn’t be an abortion would it? So the answer to your question on choice on abortion stays the same.
I think you are missing the point. Stating that the center has shifted is recognizing current political realities. It has nothing to do with the principles of right & wrong.
The real point is that conservatives need to take back certain institutions which effect public policy. This in itself is a long-term project; at least equal to the 50+ years it took the left to get the country to where it is today.
Until that is achieved, putting up conservative candidates who lack the personal charisma to shift popular opinion is akin to planting crops on a weedy, untended field. The results are predictable: failure.
That being said, the tide is on the side of conservatives: I'd be really surprised if Parker (2A) is not upheld by SCOTUS; as to abortion, science is on the pro-life side. Within a generation, there will be even more evidence of active brain waves, response mechanisms, etc in even early-term fetuses.
Since these two issues are slightly longer-term in nature, the WOT becomes paramount. I don't care who's running as long as they stand by a platform that advocates victory in Iraq & Iran.
I can’t see anyone else out there who looks better right now. . . who’s actually running.
You are a liar. These people were warned, and many of them mouthed off to Jim.
Several obviously wanted to be banned.
Since the death of the child is the desired result, your solution is ridiculous. They are too selfish to favor adoptions.
1. People can put their head in the sand and pretend Rudy doesn't have the support of a lot of conservatives, but it's flat-out a lie. I know far too many who reluctantly support him as the most viable of who is actually out there.
2. The most important principle to me is to keep the living alive, and to defeat the terrorists. To the extent that right now I don't see anyone else better, I'll support Rudy. If Fred gets in, he's my man. But I won't twiddle my thumbs waiting for the "perfect" when the "acceptable" can defeat the enemy.
A direct contradiction of what was said earlier.
Not really. You need core principles, but you also need to live in the real world. That means making deals.
You wasted that many words to say “I’m afraid of Democrats”?
“Terminate the pregnancy in one female and continue it in another female or a lab.”
Ok. But I see a problem here.
Although this type of termination would be good for the unborn child, it would not be a ‘choice’ for pregnant female.
Because the simple fact is, most females that terminate a child with abortion don’t want the ‘memory’ of that child to haunt them the rest of their lives.
Your proposal would work females that conscientiously believe abortion is wrong.
Any others just want the ‘parasite’ gone.
I refer to it as a “problem” because I don’t think Thompson is going to be as fervently pro-life as most of the people here on FR are. Its easy as a buzzword to say “I’m pro-life”, but that position requires deeper explanation these days. And if becomes apparent that Thompson is tacking slightly to the center on this issue, are they going to bail on Thompson too?
So you admit that a constitutional amendment banning abortion would never pass - you are correct. So where is the equilibrium on abortion likely to be? Once Roe goes, first trimester abortion for adult women will be in control of the states, and their elected bodies will determine it. And even the states that are generally pro-life, I believe they will try other means to combat the practice, rather then outright bans. South Carolina’s sonogram requirement for example.
You don’t trust Rudy on judges, OK fine. If Hillary is elected - its all over - she will replace 2, perhaps 3, justices, and that will secure Roe for the next 30+ years. The next president will get 2 SCOTUS picks very quickly in the term - Stevens and Ginsburg. If Thompson doesn’t “catch fire” with the electorate, and it doesn’t look like he can win the general - I’ll take my chances with Rudy’s SCOTUS picks over two 100% sure losers from Hillary. I’ll play the odds on the Rudy replacements (guided by Ted Olson) for Ginsburg and Stevens, getting 1 of those 2 to flip Roe.
And here is another factor at play - for political reasons, the national GOP wants Roe gone. They want this issue returned to the states (we are talking politics now) because its hurting the ability of the national republican party to focus on other things - the litmus test issues are the one and only thing the socon base wants to talk about. And a good portion of Republicans as well as Independents aren’t really focused on these issues and these issues alone, as a determining factor in how they vote.
All enumerated in the Constitution, and unrelated to much of the discourse that is on this thread.
So how is attacking fellow conservatives for their social opinions related to the founding of this nation.
As far as I'm concerned, it's all irrelevant, and runs contrary to traditional conservatism.
It's not principle, it's opinion mixed with religious dogma and has no place in politics.
The strange thing, is that in response to repudiation, the answer that many on the "right" came up with is more of the same.
I guess you figure that eventually the rest of the people will suddenly "get it".
Realistically speaking......I can't stop what is going to happen, and perhaps it should not be prevented. It could be that repudiation is just what the political doctor ordered.
Tough love, or whatever............Sometimes the hard way is preferable.
I will. What you offered was not a "choice". It was a pie-in-the-sky speculation: Personally, I would like to see a day come where a pregnancy can be removed from a female who does not wish to remain pregnant without ending the pregnancy itself. I find this to be an outcome where both sides of this seemingly endless debate can gain what it is they truly seek. Would this not be a good thing?
It would be a wonderful world if everyone could have a pony and ice cream, too, but that isn't the real world. Right now the choice for a pregnant woman is carry the child to term or kill him. Those two and no other. Do you equate those two, morally or ethically? Do you see the choice to kill as a vital "freedom" to maintain?
I would hold that side to the same account I hold the other. I tried to show that when I talked about their goal being “not to be pregnant”.
If such an idea as I pondered could be attained, they would have to accept it as the most proper choice for all concerned that gives them what it is they basically seek. If they would not, then they would be wrong imho.
I look at my postion as kind of an technologically advanced version of adoption. Without the physical changes to a female’s body due to a full term pregnancy.
I can respect a female that does not wish to have those changes happen to her body. Could that be considred vain? Absolutely. But I see that as their choice to make and not mine. One they will answer for themselves.
With no lives lost in he process, are not all sets of rights being respected and observed equally? FWIW, That is my aim.
Oh my
Traitors brand themselves
Were people using straw man argumments when they said we could save a person’s life if we took a kidney from that man who just died in a car wreck and replaced a failing kidney in someone who is sick?
That is basically what you are saying. Maybe you should think a bit more before you go to snapping on me.
Play your semantics now that you read a bit and see that what you wrote to me in the beinging doesn’t make any sense.
I am not for abortion, I am for something very different. You pegged me wrong.
It's that kind of thinking that ultimately lost the Congress.
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.