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?
It’s hard to even understand you. In the abortion debate as it stands right now if you are pro-choice, you are for allowing the mother to decide if she wants to kill the baby or continue her pregnancy. That IS the debate right now - Kill the baby or don’t kill the baby.
You say your aim is to end the debate today and retain choice. So if we end the debate TODAY and retain choice then the mother has the choice to not kill the baby or kill the baby.
It seems like you are saying you want to end the debate today because you believe in the future that a baby can be taken out of the mother and put into another womb which wouldn’t kill the baby. That’s a wonderful idea, but it does nothing to end the debate we are having today on abortion because that option is not available. PLUS, even if that option was available and we retained choice you would have 3 choices instead of two. You could not kill the baby, kill the baby, or give the baby up to someone else’s womb, which would be the same as not killing the baby, but I won’t squabble with you about that.
Even if your option was available today and you gave women the choice between kill the baby, don’t kill the baby and remove the baby to another womb, some women would still choose to kill the baby! So your option does nothing to change the debate on abortion now or in the future.
What right of the female is being ignored? Natural rights do not conflict. A right is a claim on all others to respect that right. The mother may not violate the baby's right to life.
Most mothers, God love 'em, would move heaven and earth to protect their baby's life.
If it sounded like a ‘murder choice’ to you then you didn’t read close ehough. Nothing about my position aims to see an end to the life of the unborn.
It is not your job to communicate my position, I agree with your point there, but it is your job to speak in a true frashion about what others say.
I seek a solution where life is not lost as it is with abortion today. THAT was stated clearly, even if you missed it.
Your “alternative” is nothing more that a ghoulish medical experiment reminiscent of Mengele.
That's nothing more than a copout. I "seek" world peace, but that doesn't absolve me from taking a stand on the issues of the day such as the War on Terror.
This really isn't that difficult. Do you support the repeal of Roe v Wade? And if so, do you support state bans on abortion?
Well right now it doesn’t work that way.
“And if it could?”
Your ‘choice’ is nonsensical and a ‘pipe dream’.
It would never be enacted.
Your way would still give the woman a way out of her MORAL responsibility.
And even IF it was done the way you propose, it’s STILL an abortion.
Because when you terminate the pregnancy, even when the fetus is transferred to another, the biological mothers pregnancy is ABORTED.
It will never pass the abortionists ‘requirements’. Because if that were the case, then carrying the child to term and giving it up to ADOPTION would be on their list.
It’s not. And never will be.
Wow, you are a clever little dweeb. Why don’t you spend your time defending Rooty’s liberal record and train wreck of a personal life.
You Rooty Toots run out of ammo to defend Rooty if you are limited to not attacking other conservative posters or candidates.
I have a feeling that many of the zotted FRiberals would have been running around Jerusalem in about 40 AD saying, "When are you going to quit talking about Jesus, just move on, it's over." (And NO, I AM NOT comparing Terri Schiavo to our Lord, Jesus Christ. I am pointing out that secular humanist/moral relativists have ALWAYS been of the mindset that evil is acceptable.)
The only one talking nonsense is you.
Are you of the position that once a female is pregnant, all choice regarding that pregnancy is off limits and it must be carried to term as it is. Even in the event of a technological advance that sees no loss of life?
I ask you this because that is the impression you give me with your posts. If that is the case, so be it. But then you have to admit that your opposition to abortion is not about preservation of life, you have to admit that it lies with your desire to force that pregnancy to term where it began.
Much is said to me on this thread about being truthful. I am very much doing that very thing. You should join me.
I think you are the one with the problem with the obvious. The mother’s and childs rights are not equal here. The child had nothing to do with its conception, it is the innocent party.
The “mother” and I use that term loosely engaged in behaviour known to have consequences (pregnancy), failed to use widely available means to prevent the pregnancy, then says her right to be free of consequences trumps the childs right to life.
The mother is at fault and actions have consequences. She gave up her “right” not to be inconvenienced when she had unprotected sex. Therefore no right to an abortion. It is the childs rights that need to be protected
There exists in the economy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness; between duty and advantage; between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy, and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity; since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.
George Washington
amen
“Dialog? We dont want no stinkin dialog!” ....
well maybe if its dialog for one
It's 2017, and the medical field has developed a method for transplanting an unborn child from one woman's womb into another's. Yet we have a woman who simply wants to abort her child instead of transplanting it. Should she be allowed to do so?
Gee, because you are addressing one of the great moral issues of our time with science fiction that has no bearing on the current debate? Not only that, but Brave New World was meant as a warning, not as a guide for a better life in the future.
Your argument is more full of holes than swiss cheese. Even if such a transfer could be done (and it is highly doubtful, you are talking moving massive blood supplies, etc), there is currently no medical procedure that is 100% without risk, nor is there likely to be any time in the forseeable future.
Therefore you would be risking the child, the biological mother and the host mother to preform a procedure that would be mitigated by carrying the baby to term in its original host. Besides that, you proposal is morally and ethically repulsive, and I don’t mind saying it.
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.