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?
You took my message as if I’m unaware, I’m not. Yet, my message still stands, it applies to everyone.
I generally am offline by 8:30 or 9:00 PM Eastern time, when I read back through the threads in the morning it always seems like I miss a bunch. There must be a bunch of nightowls on the Left Coast that like to stir things up.
Jim started this thread last Saturday night, I had dinner plans that night so I missed it and a bunch of family things to do on Sunday. By the time I saw the thread Sunday evening there were a couple thousand posts and sparks were flying. Oh well.
I got in about 400...so I have been through most of the fireworks.
LOL!
It was up around 3000 when I got in. It seems like it might be winding down — or it could be that all of the late night crowd is still in bed. JimRob was still posting to people when I got to my office at 7 this morning.
I didn’t mean “of all Republican potential candidates in OH.” I mean the most conservative candidate actually NOMINATED and RUNNING in any major contested race.
place marker.
Gotta run out again.
I would offer to you that abortion as it stands today is pretty invasive as well. I read recenty about a gall bladder removal thru the uterus. That leads me to think such a choice would be made.
If abortion as it is today is not longer a choice, because something like what I offer is the alternative choice to the one they have today, I would say they make this choice or they bring the unborn baby to term. Choice remains and abortion as it is today is no more.
If ANY republican, conservative, or whatever came on here and started supporting Hillary, Obama, or any of the other Democrat candidates, this entire forum would rightfully call them a liberal. They would have given up any conservative credibility they may have had because they've turned coat and backed a liberal. Supporting Giuliani is NO different. If you support a liberal and you do it openly on Free Republic, it is going to be assumed that you've gone liberal. Giuliani is a liberal and that is the consequences of supporting a liberal.
not sure what you are saying
plenty of people have their gallbladders out while pregnant, not that big of a deal.
To take the gallbladder out through the uterus makes no sense. They are not close together, and why would you perforate a highly vascular and muscular organ to do one of the simplest surgeries we do (outside of an appendix)
you might want to check your source again, unless I am missing something.
Hasn’t been invented yet? You say?
Well that is part of searching out NEW ideas....isn’t it?
The only reason you say my coment isn’t about the abortion debate is because you are trying to backtrack about what you said to me in the beginning. My aim is to end abortion as it is today and retain choice at the same time, it is kind of silly to say that what I am talking about has nothing to do with the abortion debate when what I seek is to end the practice as it is done today.
My comment has nothing to do with retaining death of the unborn as a solution, so do please stop saying that to me. It has no merit said towards me or what I said.
bookmarked
HYSTERECTOMY! You holler.
So you are saying then that a female has to forgo having any more children anytime in the future? Let me ask you this, do women today have children years after they have an abortion? You bet they do, and you just said that you would stop that from happening. Think about that a minute. Please.
If you support that choice, why would you not support an additional one of a similar nature?
It occurs to me that you just seek to make all the rules on your terms and are not open to any kind of alternative solution. Strikes me as a Sheryl Crow moment...one square.
Yeah, but look at it this way, too. Two years later the Terri Dailies are still going strong and we still say Terri shouldn't have been murdered. We still are as we have been, solidly behind our founder and his principles. We still believe in good combating evil. Many a troll wound up with a zot upside the head and many of the ones recently zotted and even still around no longer pester like they once did.
8mm
I have no problem with saying if you kill one child you have no right to any further children
A yes or no pointed question won’t box me in, I would have to answer both yes and no depending on perspective. Let me try and explain just a bit what I mean by that.
I think that the constitution recognizes the right to personal liberty and individual choice.
I believe that Roe was the wrong way to go about solving a fairly unique situation where two sets of rights exist within one body. I believe both should be respected equally and that our constitution demands it.
I also think that our Political leaders liked it solved that way because they get to keep a hot button issue fo use in politics. This is as much of an afront to the unborn, the use of them as pawns, as an abortion is itself.
If abortion is just banned then the unborn’s rights are observed and the female who is pregnant has hers ignored. If it is allowed to continue as is then the unborn’s rights are ignored. I find both of these situations to be wrong, per the constitutionally recognized rights of the individual, which is why I seek another alternative. That is how I feel about this very minute.
I am quite happy to see an end to partial birth abortion.
You’re starting from a false premise to begin with.
So you think it’s ok to be promiscuous as long as there are no disadvantages brought on some women through responsibility for theirs actions.
Just sleep around with anyone they want and , “oh, I’m pregnant. Time to get rid of the little PARASITE, so I can have more fun!”.
If women want to have children in the future, then maybe they should consider what they are doing in the present before playing the VICTIM.
The VICTIM is the ‘non viable mass’ they so casually dispose of.
I am sorry you are not open to a new idea that solves your opposition. Unless of course your opposition realy rests with ‘self centered’ rather than preserving life of the unborn.
You say apples and oranges and then change the point of why I made that comparison to begin with. The point I was trying to make about organ transplants was that one day they were considered undoable but now are doable.
I would imagine that in those days, people said the same thing about those transplants that you are saying now about the idea I brought up in my initial comment.
It doesn’t exist but maybe it should be researched and developed. That is what happens when a new idea is brought into play, right? Are you jut against this possability 100% or what?
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.