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?
even the federal marriage amendment would go only so far as stopping the states from using the word or the institution of “marriage” as being anything other then one man/one woman.
but so long as the States don’t use the word “marriage” to define the terms of civil unions, they can still have their own laws on that. it could not prevent the States from passing a law that allowed Harry and Mike to have health care proxy rights, or rights in wills and estates, etc - so long as its not “marriage”.
The bottom line on that is - so long as the makeup of the electorate in a particular state is zoned out enough to accept this, there isn’t much a President can do to stop civil union style rights in the States.
I didn't say you were on the wrong forum, I am saying Freepers already are not anti-choice. and your argument should be made to liberals. I think you would find that most would strongly disagree with you.
I did no such thing Elyse. You did that all on your own because you didn’t take the time to read what I wrote beyond the start, thinking you already knew what I would say thruout.
My post wasn’t meant to be clever, it was meant to seek an end to abortion in a way that observes the rights of all involved. An alternative solution to the endless crap this subject brings to our political debate now.
I guess you have to ask yourself what it is you really seek. An end to aortion on your terms.....or an end to abortion.
Or yours does. For example, the partial birth abortions that are currently the center of the debate are the destruction of viable babies that could conceivably be nurtured in incubators. Their mothers are instead choosing to have them killed and dismembered to make the abortion easier and/or to save their precious figure from a caesarean scar.
Hey, can you give us some stock tips from mid 2007? And what about the 2008 Presidential Race? Will Hildy be moving out of the US?
“Their mothers are instead choosing to have them killed and dismembered to make the abortion easier and/or to save their precious figure from a caesarean scar.”
It’s more than that.
If the choice was only not to have a baby, then bring the baby to term and giving it up for adoption would be the logical result.
That’s not the case. The reason for ‘late term’ abortion is ‘control’ by feminists over ‘their bodies’ and ‘no baby is going to stop that’.
Like I said before. There ARE choices. But abortion is the only one they choose.
Who said anyting about unstarting a life? Not me.
I support putting an alternative in place of abortion as it is today that accomplishes the goal of an abortion today, that goal being “not pregnant”.
I am thankful you recognize that my position is not one of support of abortion. Could you explain that to a couple of other FReepers? ;)
Especially when it's a step backward.
Let's put this another way. I laud your forward-thinking for the long-term. That said, today, at this very minute, do you think the Constitution guarantees the right to have an abortion? Yes or no will suffice.
“I support putting an alternative in place of abortion as it is today that accomplishes the goal of an abortion today, that goal being “not pregnant”.”
Well, there is one.
HYSTERECTOMY!
No ‘play pen’. No ‘pregnancy’.
You might be the sincerest person in the world, but right now you just sound crazy. Your alternative solution is some medical procedure that hasn't been invented and as we have pointed out isn't really a 'solution' for the women that just want to get rid of the damn kid. Your alternative solution is not an abortion it's more like a glorified c-section and so it has like absolutely nothing to do with the abortion debate. The only end to abortion is to end it, period. There are no terms in which you give someone the choice to murder another innocent human being.
Why would he? He stated right up front that it was a matter for the states to decide.
It maybe backwards to you and some others.
But to me, and many ‘conservatives’ it’s a new ‘beginning’.
It’s called perspective.
One is negative. The other is positive.
There wasn't much more to the post except for a profanity that I did not repost and some other opus-talk. I kept the relevant stuff intact, but did want to repost an entire post that had just been pulled.
ABsitnence doesn’t work after a pregnancy occurs.
My middle son shows birth control doesn’t always work.
What is it you so oppose about what I wrote? Could you lte me in on that? Too many choices a bad thing or what? Has to be your way or the way it has always been? Nothing new can enter the discussion?
I guess I just don’t get what your opposition to what I wrote really is. Could you help me out on that note by explaining it to me?
I gotta bail now, so I will pick up here next time. Laters for now.
Removing a baby would be invasive abdominal surgery. Why would these women agree to that, if they can’t handle just being pregnant?
Rudy won’t get the nomination any more than Ted Kennedy will. That said, a third party means president hillary. NOT an option. That’s how we got Bubba in there.
You have a freepmail on the way
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.