Posted on 03/19/2005 11:30:38 AM PST by Ravi
Sit down and have a drink.
Double Jack Daniels on the rocks should do it.
'how do we justify sending young, healthy men and women onto the battlefield to die?'
We don't send them to die, we send them to kill the enemy.
The law has NOT been followed in the case of Terri Schiavo.
I have not addressed your question about our military because, I reieterate, you are comparing apples to oranges.
What you are doing is called moral equivelancy in regards to comparing our military with Terri's situation.
Abortion is legal but that doesn't make it right.
Slavery *was* legal but that doesn't make it right.
If these hospital admins and doctors choose to commit murder they should be brought up on charges and sued in civil court. Just because they murder people intentionally doesn't make it right to do so.
At least we have given the government the right to represent us. I doubt all of the patients that were murdered at the hands doctors or hospitals were asked their preference on the matter and I'm sure that they weren't given the right to represent them or their interests.
If a person *wants* to die, all power to them. It's between them and God, as long as they don't ask the doctors or friends or family to become murderers.
PVS....persistent VEGETATIVE state
She's a woman, not a vegetable. It just seems more dignified to say she's in a persistent state of unawareness, or even brain damaged.
I prefer water.
'he's sent to prison because he chooses life. Why should he be punished for choosing his life?'
No, he is sent to prison for being a coward.
Hah...interesting. So there are times when choosing death is virtuous? But only if it's for any other reason but personal?
According to Florida state courts, it has.
Do you want to subject every single state court decision to federal review?
I have to go but I'll be back, should anyone answer.
'So there are times when choosing death is virtuous?'
Who is choosing death? Not many go into the mil to die.
That doctor is an alternative medicine doctor. His testimony under oath contrasts with his public statements. And he was the BEST the Schindlers could come up with to support their contention that Terri is not PVS.
As a cancer survivor, you probably do know more about heroic measures than most people.
I also realize she is not on any machine but she does rely on folks to make sure she receives the needed to nutrients to support ability to live.
That also describes 90% of the people in nursing homes.
IMO it's no coincidence "Million Dollar Baby" won the Academy Award. We're supposed to view an imperfect life as expendable.
If they don't follow accepted laws and rules. Yes.
If your guardian has a conflict of interest and would profit off your death? Yes.
Why aren't they following the law and investigating the alleged abuse and alleged attemped murder that put Terri is this situation?
Bottom Line, I don't care who you are, if you don't follow the laws you need to be penalized. Even if you are a judge.
There are some who by exclusion are included, which is the situation of the sovereign, even ours, and Bisclavret. Even the anarchist is sovereign in our State.
If there was any evidence of abuse or attempted murder, the Schindlers have had 15 years to litigate it.
Instead, Mr. Schindler, under oath, said he told Michael to move on with his life.
Could you mean Burzynski?
Yes, the Dr., not the writer! I need another cup of coffee! You obviously know of him.
No, we're all supposed to be able to make our own decisions. That's what the point of Million Dollar Baby is.
I have posed that argument Sink, and I have done it in every way I could think of, but they ignore it.
Meanwhile, the plug was pulled on a baby in Texas, and nobody batted an eye.
This leads me to believe that this entire episode is a political ploy by a group seeking to consolidate their power within the party. It is a political coup of a sort, and has more to do with abortion politics and judicial law making.
The problem is, they picked the wrong case, and have based all their arguments on straw men.
Knock one down, they put two more up. Eventually, you end up repeating the process as if you never had addressed the issue.
I knew a confrontation was going to occur, and it might be a fortunate thing to have it occur early on in the election cycle.
Like what happens on FR from time to time, we are past due for a purge in the RNC.
At this point, I am not sure what my party affiliation will be in 2006. I really don't care, but I would like to stay with the party I helped to build in the 70s and 80s.
I find many of my era have either voiced complaints or are now considering the situation. I think we have picked up elements since 2000 that have the "my way or the highway" mentality.
We have two choices. We can purge them or they can purge us. It is that simple.
You cannot compromise or come to consensus with pig headed, blind advocacy.
I will be sending mail to Congress today on this situation, and withdrawing my support for the RNC.
I look forward to seeing what shakes out! Gonna be fun.
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.