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

Skip to comments.

What About Abortion in Cases of Rape and Incest? Women and Sexual Assault
Life News ^ | 4/5/10 | Amy Sobie

Posted on 04/05/2010 3:13:26 PM PDT by wagglebee

LifeNews.com Note: Amy Sobie is the editor of The Post-Abortion Review, a quarterly publication of the Elliot Institute. The organization is a widely respected leader in research and analysis of medical, mental health and other complications resulting from abortions.

April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month. Many people, including those whose mission is to help women and girls who are victims of sexual assault and abuse, believe abortion is the best solution if a pregnancy occurs.

Yet our research shows that most women who become pregnant through sexual assault don't want abortion, and say abortion only compounds their trauma.

“How can you deny an abortion to a twelve-year-old girl who is the victim of incest?”

Typically, people on both sides of the abortion debate accept the premise that most women who become pregnant through sexual assault want abortions. From this “fact,” it naturally follows that the reason women want abortions in these cases is because it will help them to put the assault behind them, recover more quickly, and avoid the additional trauma of giving birth to a “rapist’s child.”

But in fact, the welfare of a mother and her child are never at odds, even in sexual assault cases. As the stories of many women confirm, both the mother and the child are helped by preserving life, not by perpetuating violence.

Sadly, however, the testimonies of women who have actually been pregnant through sexual assault are routinely left out of this public debate. Many people, including sexual assault victims who have never been pregnant, may be forming opinions based on their own prejudices and fears rather than the real life experiences of those people who have been in this difficult situation and reality.

For example, it is commonly assumed that rape victims who become pregnant would naturally want abortions. But in the only major study of pregnant rape victims ever done prior to this book, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn found that 75 to 85 percent did not have abortions. This figure is remarkably similar to the 73 percent birth rate found in our sample of 164 pregnant rape victims. This one finding alone should cause people to pause and reflect on the presumption that abortion is wanted or even best for sexual assault victims.1

Several reasons were given for not aborting. Many women who become pregnant through sexual assault do not believe in abortion, believing it would be a further act of violence perpetrated against their bodies and their children. Further, many believe that their children’s lives may have some intrinsic meaning or purpose which they do not yet understand. This child was brought into their lives by a horrible, repulsive act. But perhaps God, or fate, will use the child for some greater purpose. Good can come from evil.

The woman may also sense, at least at a subconscious level, that if she can get through the pregnancy she will have conquered the rape. By giving birth, she can reclaim some of her lost self-esteem. Giving birth, especially when conception was not desired, is a totally selfless act, a generous act, a display of courage, strength, and honor. It is proof that she is better than the rapist. While he was selfish, she can be generous. While he destroyed, she can nurture.

Adding to the Trauma

Many people assume that abortion will at least help a rape victim put the assault behind her and get on with her life. But evidence shows that abortion is not some magical surgery which turns back the clock to make a woman “un-pregnant.”

Instead, it is a real life event which is always very stressful and often traumatic. Once we accept that abortion is itself an event with deep ramifications for a woman’s life, then we must look carefully at the special circumstances of the pregnant sexual assault victim. Evidence indicates that abortion doesn't help and only causes further injury to an already bruised psyche?

But before we even get to this issue, we must ask: do most women who become pregnant as a result of sexual assault want to abort?

In our survey of women who became pregnant as a result of rape or incest, many women who underwent abortions indicated that they felt pressured or were strongly directed by family members or health care workers to have abortions. The abortion came about not because of the woman's desire to abort but as a response to the suggestions or demands of others. In many cases, resources such as health workers, counselors and others who are normally there to help women after sexual assault pushed for abortion.

Family pressure, withholding of support and resources that the woman needed to continue the pregnancy, manipulative an inadequate counseling and other problems all played a role into pushing women into abortions, even though abortion was often not what the woman really wanted.

Further, in almost every case involving incest, it was the girl's parents or the perpetrator who made the decision and arrangements for the abortion, not the girl herself. None of these women reported having any input into the decision. Each was simply expected to comply with the choice of others. In several cases, the abortion was carried out over the objections of the girl, who clearly told others that wanted to continue the pregnancy. In a few cases, victim was not even clearly aware that she was pregnant or that the abortion was being carried out.

"Medical Rape"

Second, although many people believe that abortion will help a woman resolve the trauma of rape more quickly, or at least keep her from being reminded of the rape throughout her pregnancy, many of the women in our survey who had abortions reported that abortion only added to and accentuated the traumatic feelings associated with sexual assault.

This is easy to understand when one considers that many women have described their abortions as being similar to a rape (and even used the term "medical rape), it is easy to see that abortion is likely to add a second trauma to the earlier trauma of sexual assault. Abortion involves an often painful intrusion into a woman’s sexual organs by a masked stranger who is invading her body. Once she is on the operating table, she loses control over her body. Even if she protests and asks the abortionist to stop, chances are she will be either ignored or told that it's too late to stop the abortion.

For many women this experiential association between abortion and sexual assault is very strong. It is especially strong for women who have a prior history of sexual assault, whether or not the aborted child was conceived during an act of assault. This is just one reason why women with a history of sexual assault are likely to experience greater distress during and after an abortion than are other women.

Research also shows that women who abort and women who are raped often describe similar feelings of depression, guilt, lowered self-esteem, violation and resentment of men. Rather than easing the psychological burdens experienced by those who have been raped, abortion added to them. Jackie wrote:

I soon discovered that the aftermath of my abortion continued a long time after the memory of my rape had faded. I felt empty and horrible. Nobody told me about the pain I would feel deep within causing nightmares and deep depressions. They had all told me that after the abortion I could continue my life as if nothing had happened.2

Those encouraging, pushing or insisting on abortion often do so because they are uncomfortable dealing with sexual assault victims, or perhaps because they harbor some prejudice against victims whom they feel “let it happen.” Wiping out the pregnancy is a way of hiding the problem. It is a “quick and easy” way to avoid dealing with the woman’s true emotional, social and financial needs. As Kathleen wrote:

I, having lived through rape, and also having raised a child “conceived in rape,” feel personally assaulted and insulted every time I hear that abortion should be legal because of rape and incest. I feel that we're being used by pro-abortionists to further the abortion issue, even though we've not been asked to tell our side of the story.

Trapping the Incest Victim

The case against abortion for incest pregnancies is even stronger. Studies show that incest victims rarely ever voluntarily agree to abortion. Instead of viewing the pregnancy as unwanted, the incest victim is more likely to see the pregnancy as a way out of the incestuous relationship because the birth of her child will expose the sexual activity. She is also likely to see in her pregnancy the hope of bearing a child with whom she can establish a truly loving relationship, one far different than the exploitive relationship in which she has been trapped.

But while the girl may see her pregnancy as a possible way of release from her situation, it poses a threat to her abuser. It is also poses a threat to the pathological secrecy which may envelop other members of the family who are afraid to acknowledge the abuse. Because of this dual threat, the victim may be coerced or forced into an unwanted abortion by both the abuser and other family members.

For example, Edith, a 12-year-old victim of incest impregnated by her stepfather, writes twenty-five years after the abortion of her child:

Throughout the years I have been depressed, suicidal, furious, outraged, lonely, and have felt a sense of loss . . . The abortion which was to “be in my best interest” just has not been. As far as I can tell, it only ‘saved their reputations,’ ‘solved their problems,’ and ‘allowed their lives to go merrily on.’ . . . My daughter, how I miss her so. I miss her regardless of the reason for her conception."

Abortion businesses who routinely ignore this evidence and neglect to interview minors presented for abortion for signs of coercion or incest are actually contributing to the victimization of young girls. Not only are they robbing the victim of her child, they are concealing a crime, abetting a perpetrator, and handing the victim back to her abuser so that the exploitation can continue.

For example, the parents of three teenaged Baltimore girls pleaded guilty to three counts of first-degree rape and child sexual abuse. The father had repeatedly raped the three girls over a period of at least nine years, and the rapes were covered up by at least ten abortions. At least five of the abortions were performed by the same abortionist at the same clinic.3

Sadly, there is strong evidence that failing to ask questions about the pregnancy and to report cases of sexual abuse are widespread at abortion clinics. Undercover investigations by pro-life groups have found numerous cases in which clinics agreed to cover up cases of statutory rape or ongoing abuse of minor girls by older men and simply perform an abortion instead.

In 2002 a judge found a Planned Parenthood affiliate in Arizona negligent for failing to report a case in which a 13-year-old girl was impregnated and taken for an abortion by her 23-year-old foster brother. The abortion business did not notify authorities until the girl returned six months later for a second abortion. A lawsuit alleged that the girl was subjected to repeated abuse and a second abortion because Planned Parenthood failed to notify authorities when she had her first abortion. The girl's foster brother was later imprisoned for abusing her.4

Finally, we must recognize that children conceived through sexual assault also deserve to have their voices heard. Rebecca Wasser-Kiessling, who was conceived in a rape, is rightfully proud of her mother’s courage and generosity and wisely reminds us of a fundamental truth that transcends biological paternity: “I believe that God rewarded my birth mother for the suffering she endured, and that I am a gift to her. The serial rapist is not my creator; God is.”

Similarly, Julie Makimaa, who works diligently against the perception that abortion is acceptable or even necessary in cases of sexual assault, proclaims, “It doesn't matter how I began. What matters is who I will become.”

That’s a slogan we can all live with.


Citations

1. Mahkorn, "Pregnancy and Sexual Assault," The Psychological Aspects of Abortion, eds. Mall & Watts, (Washington, D.C., University Publications of America, 1979) 55-69.

2. David C. Reardon, Aborted Women, Silent No More (Chicago, IL: Loyola University Press, 1987), 206.

3. Jean Marbella, "Satisfactory explanations of sex crime proved elusive," Baltimore Sun, Oct. 31, 1990; M. Dion Thompson, "GBMC, doctor suspected nothing amiss," Baltimore Sun, Oct. 31. 1990; "Family Horror Comes to Light in Story of Girls Raped by Father," Baltimore Sun, November 4, 1990; Raymond L. Sanchez, "Mother Sentenced in Rape Case," Baltimore Sun, Dec. 6, 1990.

4. "Planned Parenthood Found Negligent in Reporting Molested Teen's Abortion," Pro-Life Infonet, attributed to Associated Press; Dec. 26, 2002.



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; moralabsolutes; prolife; rape
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 521-524 next last
To: xzins

Obviously he uses his own criteria and superior knowledge of the “big picture” which the sheep have no clue about.

So much more so for the INFINITE Creator of space and time Who knows the End from the Beginning.


141 posted on 04/06/2010 6:15:22 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief

Somebody using your account made post #62. If that wasn’t you, you’re complaining to the wrong person. Tell Jim and the moderators. If it was you, stop pretending you didn’t say it.


142 posted on 04/06/2010 6:17:05 AM PDT by BykrBayb (Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Some have not thought about or do not like the notion that God is above the creation and is its Judge.

They really haven’t dealt with what a God is.


143 posted on 04/06/2010 6:19:04 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: xzins

That “Judge” part is what they avoid at all costs.

When you contemplate God’s perfection, and His ultimate nature, and how you so disasterously fail to measure up to that... well, it’s obvious that you’re hopeless...

But, He took care of that with a Gift given freely.


144 posted on 04/06/2010 6:21:43 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief; metmom; xzins; bcsco; Coleus; narses; BykrBayb; floriduh voter; Lesforlife; ...
Well I’m glad you didn’t tag me with that vile term “conservative” at least.

So, you consider conservatives to be "vile"?

As for anarchist, think what you like, though I’m not an arnarchist, I’m an independent individualist.

Call it whatever you want, but a person who opposes ALL law is an anarchist.

Is name calling and false accusation a new Christian virtue. Has “though shalt not bear false witness” been revoked. I didn’t know.

You have said that you oppose any laws against abortion, how is it false witness to point this out?

145 posted on 04/06/2010 6:24:01 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I have argued with liberals that attempt the same thing.
It’s very frustrating when you’re the party involved,
but amusing when observing as a third party.

You repeat back exactly the position that the liberal has stated, and they demand that you stop “putting words in their mouth” and misrepresenting what they said.

What they get all bent out of shape about is when you go to the next stage of thinking beyond their asserted position. When you point out the logical consequences of their assertion, they deny that they asserted to cause of that consequence...

amusing, and frustrating


146 posted on 04/06/2010 6:26:56 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

My opposition to abortion is not going to be on the same grounds as any of yours, because yours are religious. I do not think you even get that right, but that’s just my opinion.

I object to putting something so personal and private in the hands of the government. Beyond that I’m fully in agreement with all or your objections to abortion, just not the grounds.

I do have two questions, however. If you believe God opposes abortion, why did God so often require His people to slaughter women with their babies?

The other question is, if God opposes abortion, why doesn’t he use His power to force people not to have them?

Answer if you like, and if you can. This invitation is to anyone.

Hank


147 posted on 04/06/2010 6:34:55 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: metmom; Hank Kerchief; wagglebee; houeto; annalex
But the whole issue with abortion is that abortion is the murder of a human being, a human being that the government is obligated to protect.

The whole argument that a fetus isn't a human being is specious and duplicitous. A fetus created by two humans cannot be anything other than a human infant, just as a fetus created by two dogs cannot be anything other than a puppy, and on, and on...

A fetus in the womb develops in human form. Just because it still nurtures from it's mother's body doesn't mean it isn't a human form. It simply hasn't been born physically as yet. It is a developing human. Hank, your argument is void of reason. Sorry, but that's a fact.

Secondly, your argument against government intervention into abortion is specious because it mirrors government intervention protecting abortion; which we already have and you are apparently comfortable with.

What you're missing here, and what I mentioned last night, is that our argument doesn't center around government intervention. It's all about right and wrong. The horn of the dilemma is, that we'll never achieve some modicum of right vs. wrong without some modicum of government intervention. So, we choose to side with the form of intervention that protects the womb and the fetus.

148 posted on 04/06/2010 6:39:15 AM PDT by bcsco (Obama: Hokus Pokus POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief

Your questions have already been answered, by multiple people.

You either are too obtuse to understand the answers,
or without the benefit of the Holy Spirit,
the truth is hidden from you.


149 posted on 04/06/2010 6:41:45 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief; metmom; xzins; bcsco; Coleus; narses; BykrBayb; floriduh voter; Lesforlife; MrB; ...
My opposition to abortion is not going to be on the same grounds as any of yours, because yours are religious.

Your "opposition" to abortion is identical to every liberal politician who is "personally opposed, but."

And as far as religion, on this very thread YOU have tried to say that the Bible doesn't consider abortion to be murder.

I object to putting something so personal and private in the hands of the government.

So, murder is "personal" and the government should stay out of it?

I do have two questions, however. If you believe God opposes abortion, why did God so often require His people to slaughter women with their babies?

Listening to atheists mangle the Bible to justify their agenda is quite amusing.

The other question is, if God opposes abortion, why doesn’t he use His power to force people not to have them?

By your logic, God must also be in favor of all other forms of murder, rape, armed robbery, arson, etc.

150 posted on 04/06/2010 6:43:39 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: bcsco
"... our argument doesn't center around government intervention. It's all about right and wrong. The horn of the dilemma is, that we'll never achieve some modicum of right vs. wrong without some modicum of government intervention."

Err...ah...if you say so!

Hank

151 posted on 04/06/2010 6:45:03 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Atheists DO have a real problem with explaining the existance of evil.

But then again, why does an ATHEIST have any problem with the concept of “evil”? Reality just “is”.


152 posted on 04/06/2010 6:53:47 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
"Listening to atheists mangle the Bible to justify their agenda is quite amusing."

Delighted you are amused, but I'm willing to let the Bible speak for itself.

Since all these killings were at God's command, and since killing all the people in a city is certainly going to include some women, "with child," wouldn't that include the killing of the unborn?

But of the cities of these people, which the Lord they God doth give thee for an inheritance, though shalt save alive nothing that breatheth, but thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, as the Lord they God hath commanded thee. [Deut. 20:16&17]

And the Lord said unto Joshua, fear not, neither be thou dismayed. Take all the people of war with thee, and arise, go up to Ai ... And it came to pass, when Israel had ceased slaying all the inhabitants of Ai in the field, in the wilderness in which they chased them, and when they were all fallen on the edge of the sword, until they were consumed, that all the Israelites returned unto Ai, and smote it with the edge of the sword. And so it was that all that fell that day, both of men and women, were twelve thousand, even all the men of Ai. For Joshua drew not his had back, with which he stretched out the spear, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai. [Joshua 8:1,24-26]

And that day Joshu took Makkedah and smote it with the edge of the sword, and its king he utterly destroy, them, and all the souls that were in it; he let none remain ... [Joshua 10:28]

So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the Negev, and of the Shephelah, and of the srings, and all their kings; he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed as the Lord God of Israel commanded. [Joshua 10:40] Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and sucking, ox and sheep, camel and ass. [I Samuel 15:3]

Apparently, the God of the Bible is not too squeamish about the death of the unborn, or anyone or anything else, it would seem.

"'The other question is, if God opposes abortion, why doesn’t he use His power to force people not to have them?'

By your logic, God must also be in favor of all other forms of murder, rape, armed robbery, arson"

Well that's not my logic. You thought that up all by yourslef. Very strange way to think.

But you didn't answer the question. Perhaps you can't.

Hank

153 posted on 04/06/2010 6:54:45 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief; xzins; BykrBayb; wagglebee; metmom
Abortion is not murder of a human being, and if that spurious argument is the only one you have against abortion, you have no argument at all.

Hank, you are a long time poster here, but arguments like that make you look like a DU Troll.

This is a pro-life website. JR has made that quite clear. If you are not a pro-life conservative, and you do not value the life of the unborn, then perhaps you should consider posting elsewhere.

154 posted on 04/06/2010 6:58:20 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief; metmom; xzins; bcsco; Coleus; narses; BykrBayb; floriduh voter; Lesforlife; MrB; ...
Since all these killings were at God's command, and since killing all the people in a city is certainly going to include some women, "with child," wouldn't that include the killing of the unborn?

So, you DO believe that God condones abortion?

You wrote:
The other question is, if God opposes abortion, why doesn’t he use His power to force people not to have them?

To which I responded:
By your logic, God must also be in favor of all other forms of murder, rape, armed robbery, arson, etc.

And now you say:
Well that's not my logic. You thought that up all by yourslef[sic]. Very strange way to think.

How is that NOT your logic? Your logic is that if God doesn't stop something it's because He doesn't oppose it. That logic is plain to any logical person reading your post.

155 posted on 04/06/2010 7:02:56 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye; wagglebee
There is no blood at conception, so how can life begin at conception? At least Biblically speaking?

Gen 49:25 by the God of your father who will help you, by the Almighty who will bless you with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that crouches beneath, blessings of the breasts and of the womb.

Job 1:21 And he said, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return. The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD."

Job 31:15 Did not he who made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb?

Psa 17:14 from men by your hand, O LORD, from men of the world whose portion is in this life. You fill their womb with treasure; they are satisfied with children, and they leave their abundance to their infants.

Psa 71:6 Upon you I have leaned from before my birth; you are he who took me from my mother's womb. My praise is continually of you.

Psa 127:3 Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward.

Psa 139:13 For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb.

Ecc 11:5 As you do not know the way the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything.

Isa 44:2 Thus says the LORD who made you, who formed you from the womb and will help you: Fear not, O Jacob my servant, Jeshurun whom I have chosen.

Isa 46:3 "Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all the remnant of the house of Israel, who have been borne by me from before your birth, carried from the womb;

God bears us from before our birth and blesses us in the womb. Do you honestly believe he considers abortion something other than murder?

Can you explain how the commandment can prohibit murder but God tells David to slay all, even women and children?

I suggest you ask God of His will. After all, the Bible teaches that His ways are a mystery to us. But God brought death into the World because of our transgressions. So, for God to tell David to slay all, it is part of God's plan, and who are we to queston, or judge? It's we who are prohibited from taking the life of another. And that is exactly what abortion is.

156 posted on 04/06/2010 7:03:59 AM PDT by bcsco (Obama: Hokus Pokus POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

See?

That’s a perfect example of what I posted to you before.
You take their EXACT WORDS, and go to the next logical step,

and they deny the EXACT WORDS.

Liberals - immune to logic.
As CS Lewis said, the Christian worldview is the only worldview that makes logical sense of the world.


157 posted on 04/06/2010 7:05:04 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: MrB
But then again, why does an ATHEIST have any problem with the concept of “evil”? Reality just “is”.

Atheist LOVE evil. Atheism is responsible for nearly ONE AND A HALF BILLION DEATHS in the past century.

158 posted on 04/06/2010 7:06:24 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

My point was, there should be no concept of good or evil for an atheist. What is the standard?


159 posted on 04/06/2010 7:08:44 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; Hank Kerchief; xzins; BykrBayb; metmom
This is a pro-life website. JR has made that quite clear. If you are not a pro-life conservative, and you do not value the life of the unborn, then perhaps you should consider posting elsewhere.

Keep in mind that Hank has already dismissed conservatism as "vile".

160 posted on 04/06/2010 7:09:22 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 521-524 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