FR is pro-God, pro-Life, pro-family, pro-constitution, pro-limited government. Period!!

February 3, 2014 | Jim Robinson

[Starstruck]

FR is pro-God, pro-Life, pro-family, pro-constitution, pro-limited government and will remain that way.

I feel like a Pro.

[Agamemnon]

Nah, its a useless endeavor. See Dembski's dictum on winning a debate with current evolutionists.

Perhaps you have a link to that "dictum" you can share?

You may have noticed that some evo-trolls still manage to "clutter the place" from time to time under new screen names.

You may think it a useless endeavor, but I don't recall Christ ever telling Christians to stand down in the defense of Truth, do you? In fact I remember reading something in Ephesians 6 that says quite the opposite.

FReegards!

[TigersEye]

That’s what I thought.

[Alex Murphy]

Never forget there will always be Quix-like people who are always able to convince themselves they are "right," in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

Or TaxachusettsMan-like people :)

[tanknetter]

?I FINALLY BELIEVE, IT IS THE WOMAN’S SOLE RIGHT TO CHOOSE.. [Poster chooses ZOT!]

Thanks for the link, I appreciate it. But I am somewhat confused ... I read and reread his post several times and it seems that all of the "choices" he cites explicitly are inputs (when, where, how, with who) rather than outputs (birth or abortion).

He later clarifies with the following (this is his only response on the thread, right?):

Of course I am not in anyway condoning abortion (murder), but I am a realist.. We are hamstrung by the laws that are on the books, and until the culture has reversed it’s opinion, the only way to halt the option is to hold them solely responsible for their own actions, and to slowly limit the methods that any other option to birth is lawful, and restricted.

So he does seem to be talking about mechanics here, not belief/ideology. In a scenario where abortion is the (current) law of the land, and knowing that changing the culture is a long-term process) the available options are to hold women responsible for their own actions (since, in his original post he makes the case that they are pretty much the ones in the driver's seat) and to slowly limit/restrict the current lawful options.

So, what am I missing here? I'm not trying to be an apologist or enabler for someone dumb enough to start pushing pro-choice/pro-abortion views here (whether due to a legitimate change of heart or to troll), but I just don't see any sort of pro-abortion sentiment being expressed here. Or even an output-side pro-choice one. At worse he's saying (inferred in his original post, explicitly stated in his second) that getting rid of abortion is a long-term process and Conservatives need to focus on chipping away at it (ie death of a thousand cuts) rather than looking for a silver bullet that will do it in one fell swoop.

[Manic_Episode]

You don’t really give a crap, do you?

[ansel12]

While trying to understand what his position was, did you see post 92?

[Cyber Liberty]

Bears repeating. "FR is pro-God, pro-Life, pro-family, pro-constitution, pro-limited government. Period!!"

Now get out there and kick some liberal butt!

[vet7279]

I have no issue with Mr. Robinson but I would think that a opposing points of view ( not bashing) would/should have a place, should it not? We cannot simply boil life down to binary (true/false) conditions, there are, at least the way I see it, lots of shades of grey. If FR is simply a forum to bash those that disagree with us, then what is the point? Ego fodder? My interpretation with most of what I read here is a disdain for the abuses in/of government and social "privilege". By abuse of privilege, for example, I mean abortion on demand as a means of birth control. There are simply too many legitimate situations to legislate everyone individually and a blanket ban is not workable, there has to be an option. We call ourselves conservatives and heap praise on the Tea Party, but many of the leadership of the tea party are gentlemen farmers and are on the federal farm dole not to grow crops. Hypocrisy like this not only destroys credibility but we are giving the opposition the ammunition to shoot us with.
Mr. Robinson is welcome to cancel my membership any time....

[betty boop]

I wonder about some of the class of 1998 sometimes. Wonder if they signed up for the right site.

Hi Agamemnon!!! I too am a member of the Class of 1998. I celebrate my 16th FRanniversary next month.

You wrote: "Some of us have been taking on the atheists and Darwinists around here since 1998, let me assure you." Oh yes indeedy; this has been a principal joy for me over the many years. (As recently as this.)

And so I am a little perplexed to hear the opinion that at least some members of the Class of 1998 might not have "signed up for the right site." I guess that all depends on how you characterize the site: Is it mainly political, or is it essentially cultural?

The way I answer that question is: It is mainly cultural. It is not party-driven; it is not a "political action committee." It is devoted to the articulation, propagation, and preservation of the conservative philosophical principles — cultural, economic, constitutional — that are at the very root of American order.

And FWIW I think that is both fitting and proper. Some of us gladly do battle with atheists and Darwinists — for neither can explain, let alone defend the human order — personal, social, political — outlined in the Declaration, made manifest in the Preamble, with "rules of the game" spelled out in the Constitution itself.

One thing human history clearly tells us, going as far back as human records can show: There are no political answers to what are fundamentally cultural problems....

FWIW. Though I recognize I am not the one who decides such things here.

Great to see you again, old friend! Thank you so much for the ping!

[Jim Robinson]

I reviewed a few of his posts, but thought I shouldn’t waste a whole lot of time after reviewing this one:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2905011/replies?c=221

Give a crap? After the insults he posted about me and John? Look, maybe he’s better off posting over at TruBlueRinos.com (the subject of my post he was complaining about). I’ve always said that if FR is not your cup of tea you should just move on.

[Jim Robinson]

FR is pro-life. Sorry, that’s not subject to debate. If you wish to debate the finer points of abortion, please go join TruBlueRinos.com

[mosesdapoet]

It’s sad that what you did even has to be posted.I developed a campaign hand bill piece reminding voters that at the 2011 Democrat party convention they removed any reference to God and when it was put back in they booed which I often post here; entitled Start your own choir be your own precinct captain.

As I approach candidates as well as policy makers on this subject what I get from them is “We don’t want to offend anyone”.. In fact an FR responded that way. We have an announced candidate for congress in my congressional district who btw vigorously campaigned against CORE ,and that was his response. If he makes through the primary I’ll vote for him but I’m looking for someone else I can back not some ho working the street.

And that is the way these RINO candidates should be looked at .Another Hooker under the lamp light working the street.

[spel_grammer_an_punct_polise]

“there are, at least the way I see it, lots of shades of grey.”

While I agree with the idea that there are many shades of grey and that opposing points of view should be allowed, there are some things that are simply ‘non-negotiable’ under any circumstances, period.

I believe that that is the ‘point’ of Jim Robinson’s post.

[The_Reader_David]

I don’t think it’s unnecessary semantic hair-splitting. The pro-aborts always bring up the “hard cases”.

Applying the moral clarity of the distinction between murder and justifiable homicide to abortion makes clear the hollowness of their attempt to justify abortion on the whim of the woman, which is manifestly murder, on the basis of the “hard cases” that can reasonably be argued to be instances of justifiable homicide. (How reasonably varying from the case abortion of an ectopic pregnancies which I have never heard anyone on either side of the issue argue against — though folks on our side often express the hope that neonatology will someday reach the point that children in that unfortunate circumstance can be saved — to the rape-and-incest exception which produces divisions in the pro-life camp.)

[Manic_Episode]

That post was made a couple years after he had been crapped upon. His restraint finally gave out.

Well, it's your place, but he was on the side you supposedly support.

[tanknetter]

While trying to understand what his position was, did you see post 92?

Nope, didn't see that, thanks!

Saying, without any sort of qualification that it's a regrettable but necessary (in his opinion) interim step to move the abortion situation in the right direction, he could "live with" abortion being restricted to the first 12 weeks is definitely a pro-abortion stand.

[flaglady47]

“The way I answer that question is: It is mainly cultural. It is not party-driven; it is not a “political action committee.” It is devoted to the articulation, propagation, and preservation of the conservative philosophical principles — cultural, economic, constitutional — that are at the very root of American order.”

At least at its inception, it was both. There was great political activism on behalf of George Bush for President and to get Republicans elected to Congress. There was great unity of purpose. Remember the Freeper’s Ball? The Dan Rather blow up, the FR Cookbook? How you can say it is not a political site when over half of the threads posted on FR are, is beyond me.

And I think the Class of 1998 was one of the best ones on FR. Now, there has been great turnover on this website, and a different breed of Freeper now rules the threads. Lots more Libertarians, and Republicans in general seem to now be persona non grata. I’m not sure what it has evolved into as far as a lot of those that now post here. I do know it is quite different from what it started out to be, especially in tone.

[flaglady47]

I might add, I have always been against abortion. It is immoral. And I can never understand the selfishness of women who choose abortion when at most it is 6-7 months out of their life, and still they can’t manage to follow through on the pregnancy in order to give a baby a chance at life. Most women until recently when more refined tests allow for more quick results, didn’t even know they were pregnant until about 2-3 months into it.

Women don’t have to keep their babies, they can have them adopted, and women know that. There are so many families who for one reason or the other can’t have babies and would love to be able to adopt. Plus there are many groups out there now who will make sure a woman’s bills will be paid if they choose to go to term with their pregnancy rather than abort. There just aren’t any good excuses anymore.

[AuH2ORepublican]

Murder is the intentional taking of an innocent human life. Abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being, and thus is murder. It really is that simple.

As for the issue of “abortions to save the life of the mother,” you’ll find that it isn’t the case that action is taken in order to kill the baby, but that action is taken to save the mother’s life that has the unintended consequence of ending the baby’s life. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy or most other pregnancies that would result in the death of the mother if the baby isn’t delivered prematurely, the doctor is saving a human being’s life instead of withholding treatment that will result in the death of two human beings.