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

To: Finalapproach29er; Dilbert San Diego; jobim; agent_delta; Verbosus; The Ghost of FReepers Past; ...
It's true that a baby is always a blessing (and not just a "healthy, perfect" baby, either: any baby); but it's also true that a baby can be begotten in wrongful ways.

The great St. Augustine, at seventeen (!) contracted an illicit relation with a young woman and Adeodatus was born of this union. Augustine, in his delight, named him "Adeodatus", i.e. the "gift of God". But realizing more and more that he had wronged his son by his less-than-honorable begetting, Augustine came to repent of the sin even as he always loved his son.

We can rejoice wholeheartedly in the beautiful child, and still be rightfully troubled if the innocent baby was conceived out of wedlock by (for instance) fornication, adultery, concubinage, laboratory production or commercial transaction.

No, these things are not identical to each other, but they are equivalently out of wedlock, nonmarital.

These things are demeaning to the child himself, because every child should know he came from a sacred act, from the act designed, established, and blessed by God: the loving marital embrace of his father and mother.

You think a natural tie is not important? Mary Cheney does think a natural tie is important--- paradoxically. That's why she chose to be impregnated by whomever, however, whatever ---rather than to adopt: because she saw some value in a natural tie.

This little boy will never know his father. Never. Don't get me wrong, I'm not implying deliberate malice here, but--- his mother will see to that.

432 posted on 05/24/2007 5:52:49 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Whatever things are true, whatever are noble, just, pure, lovely--- brethren, think on these things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: Mrs. Don-o
This little boy will never know his father. Never. Don't get me wrong, I'm not implying deliberate malice here, but--- his mother will see to that.

That is because that little baby boy is just a prop for her lurid sex fantasy...

441 posted on 05/24/2007 6:11:34 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 432 | View Replies ]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Excellent observations, Mrs. Don-o, making the distinctions in all the right places.


454 posted on 05/24/2007 6:45:54 AM PDT by Tax-chick (We all thread in this earth swathe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 432 | View Replies ]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Your post 432 is very good. I agree.


499 posted on 05/24/2007 8:01:52 AM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 432 | View Replies ]

To: Mrs. Don-o

I would add that it is not too late for Mary to do right by her child. She can bring him up without the exposure to and normalization of homosexuality. I would applaud that. But clearly Mary does not plan to put the child’s interests ahead of her own.


500 posted on 05/24/2007 8:03:29 AM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 432 | View Replies ]

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