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?
“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,”
Ponder this, someday science will invent a pill, or something that can be put under the skin, so that females in the most advanced country on earth will forget that unplanned pregnancies were even possible. When that pill that prevents pregnancy is invented, then peace and harmony will reign in America.
I wonder which will arrive first a “birth control pill”, or your solution to abortion of transplanting 1.4 million babies a year into other women (or devices).
There is nothing conservative in using liberal tactics.
Almost all the Rudyphiles, including recently banned ones, have proclaimed their intention to vote for the candidate who emerges from the nomination process against Hillary. THAT is the conservative test not some vague alligence to ideology or hatred of all but a tiny few candidates. And you cannot deny there are VERY few acceptable to you. Conservatives have been isolated and neutralized to such an extent that electing one on a statewide basis is only possible in a few small states. This appears to be unrecognized by you and others.
Show me where I said I support the choice to abort a baby or that I said that right exists. You can’t. I didn’t say anything of the kind. My position is very different than most all in this subject’s debate, not in endgame but in plays, and you are trying to put me into a category that I am not a party to.
You see the word ‘choice’ and think it HAS to mean abortion as it is today. That is not a choice I want to see continue no matter HOW many times you or anyone else says it. Maybe you have ben bitten by the indoctrination bug of what ‘choice’ means.
Just because I want there to be A choice, does not mean I want THAT choice.... and that is exactly what you are trying to say. Maybe you could step back and see that. You are just plain wrong to say I support “infantcide”. My own words on this thread say otherwise, just becasue you decide to ignore them doesn’t mean I didn’t write them.
:-)
I have a few details stickling me. If an unborn baby is transferred from one womb to another, who is the mother? Will the child have a hyphenated name? Who are the brothers, sisters, uncles, cousins and aunts? If a child originally from womb A is moved to womb B and then marries a child from womb A, is it incest? Are the rights of the husband of the owner of womb B violated if said womb is trans-impregnated by the spouse of the owner of womb A? What if the owner of womb A is not married, does spouse B have to pay for the child of a one night stand?
We get our word "hysterics" from the Greek hyster, womb. Bunch of that today, huh :-)
And when that day comes, there will be some malcontents demanding that the innovation should be banned or restricted.
Metmom, if you read the words I have written you would see that untruths have been stated about my position. You are among them.
Rudy said he would sign the bill banning PBA which Bush just signed. Seems only yesterday that Bush was being attacked HERE for not doing enough to stop abortion with claims he was NO better than the Democrats.
Because that is the ONLY option we have today. Your science fiction level options are just that, science fiction. They don't exist today. Today, if you're for choice, the code word of the liberal left for abortion, you are for abortion, plain and simple.
meanwhile, while you debate fantasies, millions of babies are dying every year.
This sounds alot like what the early Christians faced. They didn't give up their ideals to avoid persecution, nor will conservatives bow to liberal candidates or supporters who have abandoned their roots.
As a Duncan Hunter supporter,I must ask....HUH?
I hope I'm completely wrong about this, having not read every post.
Are you saying that you favor some kind of fetal transplant idea?
And DH supports that idea?
Men have only the regular eyes, but they smile a lot looking at the thousand talents their wives and moms have. See ya later :-)
You’ve got to understand that it’s just hard for us to understand how you think the abortion debate can end today without taking away choice. There are lots of situations where I think we should have choices, but in the abortion debate today you can’t give someone a choice, because that choice today could mean that a child will be killed. This isn’t about wishes or dreams for what we would like to see in our perfect utopia. This is about the cold hard fact that thousands of babies are going to die today when they are aborted because our society gave their mothers a choice.
that is exactly what he is proposing, and won’t answer the logical objections. Of course, it is easy to hold a position that is not now possible, and likely will not be in the future, to appear to be above the abortion fray. I am not fooled, and neither is God
A Leftists idea of choice is one thing. Mine is very different. I seek a choice that does not involve the loss of life of another.
Sanctity of life is part of my position. Even if some here refuse to acknowlege that reality.
I'll ponder that interesting premise:
I can see a day when a President like Hillary would sign a bill proposed by a Dianna DeGette type that would require that little pill to be surgically inplanted in every female at the age of 12. Then when that woman decided she wanted to have a baby she would then petition her local board to have the pill removed - at her cost of course - AFTER she proved that she had the financial wherewithal to support the child, and assuring the govt that after her successful pregnancy, she would have the chip reinplanted.
Gosh, won't that be wonderful? < /s >
TS
You are ignoring the reality of millions of babies a year being killed by “choice” while you put forth a fantasy proposal that may never be, and even if it will be possible is fraught with problems.
There is no alternative! It doesn't exist. And just how are you working for it? Are you a medical researcher working in a field of trying to transplant babies from one womb to the next? How is the research going?
pro-choice =pro-abortion
If you still want women to have a "choice", you still want them to be able to choose abortion.
Everyone is wrong but you? Get a clue.
you are correct.
taking no action is just another form of agreeing with the status quo
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.