Posted on 02/03/2006 11:10:47 AM PST by presidio9
It was probably pulled because it's a photo-shopped composite photograph, not a real one.
Why answer, when you have obviously decided that "conservative" means your definition of "conservative", and that anybody who doesn't meet your definition doesn't belong on FR? By your definition, Laura Bush, Barbara Bush, and Condi Rice would be unwelcome on FR, because they don't qualify as "conservatives".
The framers of our Constitution were very much "libertarians" by today's popular definition of that term. Among other things, they didn't believe in government confiscating the fruits of some people's labors to give to other people, or regulating what people do with their own real and other private property, they didn't believe that government was responsible for ensuring a pleasant outcome in each citizen's personal life, and they didn't believe in "gun control". They didn't say a word about abortion.
The framers of our Constitution did not address abortion because it was not medically viable at the time (also, the framers did not address space travel for similiar reasons). In the 18th century death of the mother was a frequent side effect of abortion.
Complete bunko!!
It has always amazed me that men have arranged for women to accept abortion as a woman's right thing rather than a man's irresponsibility thing. At one time a woman would not have had sex with a man who didn't love her enough to marry her and raise children with her. Now, she will do so and claim it as a constitutional right! She can sleep with anyone no matter what he thinks of her.
When I was young I was told what I thought was an appalling joke. A woman is bag ugly if you have to put a bag over her head before you will sleep with her. She's double-bag ugly if you have to put a bag over your head in case her bag falls off. And she's coyote ugly if, upon waking up and finding her asleep on your arm, you'd chew your arm off before taking a chance of waking her up. I hated the joke because of what it made the woman out to be.
But they seem to want to make themselves out to be that very thing.
Shalom.
Fear of what? That presidio9 will disapprove of me? Gimme a break!
You shouldn't have bit on that one. The idea that the adoption agency might not have been able to place the child had nothing to do with the discussion at hand. The most the concept of an orphanage might have contributed to the discussion was to suggest that a baby is better off dead than in an orphanage. You are arguing with someone who just wants to argue.
Shalom.
It is not possible for me to know what is driving your fear. I am just correctly pointing out that you are afriad of answering the question.
My dear O and T. You are confusing the 2000s with a century that understands reality. In the 2000s the only thing faith can do is make people behave differently than they were born by nature to do. That's why the little kid who played Pocahontas in "The New World" talked about how awful it must have been for that poor woman to become a Christian.
Understand, stories like the story of Pocahontas, or the Waodani as told in "The End of the Spear", where faith actually changes your life for the better and creates a viable society where one does not live before will NEVER be acceptable in this century. Faith can only enslave, it can never liberate.
That is, unless you know G-d.
Shalom.
There doesn't seem to be much support for the "Male Abortion." That's a law that permits a man to file a certificate disowning the child during the period when an abortion would be legal. He has to pay a fee, similar to the cost of an abortion. Once the document is filed, the child is dead to him. No visitation rights, no supporting him in his old age, and no child support payments to momma.
For some reason, the pro-choice crowd has never taken up this project to give daddy a choice.
Shalom.
Murderers in prisons like to tell their stories to one another too. "Well, f%*@, Charlie, I hadda kill that guy. I had a bright future ahead of me. I couldn't let that &@^@*($#&^@ mess things up for me."
Our entire society was birthed on the notion that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Life.
The right to life.
I'm certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that the framers of our constitution, the fathers of this nation, would not be in favor of snuffing out innocent life in pursuit of whatever.
You are correct. But so many pro-aborts are fond of telling us that nobody wants the little Black babies and that simply is not true. But you are correct it was a red herring and I shouldn't have followed the line of reasoning.
No, you are just assuming you are correct. If I was the fearful type, I'd just refrain from posting messages that express views which are unpopular on the forum.
This may be difficlut for you to understand (even after the point has been repeated multiple times), but you are afraid of answering the question. Clearly, you are not afraid of lying or making an ass out of yourself. You've established that.
Women don't need abortion to avoid having a baby ... unless they've been raped, nonpenetrative sex and abstinence are always options. The "freedom" to abort is the "freedom" to commit in-utero infanticide.
You don't think there were abortions at the time of the framing of the Constitution? Even the Egyptians knew how to procure abortion. At the time we became a country, we followed British common law on the subject, which was basically that the law ignored it until "quickening". States only started passing laws against it in the 1820s.
As a matter of fact I know a family that did just that in 1970. Old-line Catholics do not BELIEVE in abortion. A parent might push adoption, but not abortion.
In which she proved she did not even value her own child.
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.