Posted on 11/07/2007 7:41:35 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
On the matter of Terri Schiavo’s right to life, which occupied the attention of the media and Congress in 2005, Thompson called that a family decision, “in consultation with their doctor,” and “the federal government should not be involved.” Thompson added, “the less government the better.” ...
In the case of Terri Schiavo, a severely disabled person, there was a family dispute. Her estranged husband wanted her to die and he eventually succeeded in starving her to death. Her parents had wanted her to live. ...
There was no moral justification for killing Terri because she had an inherent right to life and there was no clear evidence that she wanted food and water withdrawn. The morally correct course of action would have been to let her family take care of her. Nobody would have been harmed by that.
“Meet the Press” host Tim Russert brought up the death of Thompson’s daughter, who reportedly suffered a brain injury and a heart attack after an accidental overdose of prescription drugs. Apparently Thompson and members of his family made some decisions affecting her life and death. Thompson described it as an “end-of-life” issue.
Bobby Schindler says he doesn’t know what the circumstances precisely were in that case and that he sympathizes with what Thompson went through. However, he says that it is not comparable at all to his sister’s case.
“What no one is recognizing,” he told me, “is that my sister’s case was not an end-of-life issue. She was simply and merely disabled. Terri wasn’t dying. She was only being sustained by food and water. She had no terminal illness. She wasn’t on any machines. All she needed was a wheelchair and she could have been taken anywhere. She didn’t even need to be confined to a bed.”
(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...
Doesn't Florida law allow feeding tubes to be removed?
Then, I suppose God agreed with Michael's timing. Because she did die, didn't she? I guess that was when God wanted her to go.
Are you really dumb enough to believe that, or do you have so much time on your hands that you need to amuse yourself by posting agitprop to irritate others?
The difference between Fred and Hillary on abortion is clear. Fred understands that abortion is wrong and that there can be no constitutional right to do wrong. Hillary (and for that matter Rudy Giuliani and even Mitt Romney) don’t.
Arcane disputes about which government should place exactly what restrictions on behavior we all agree is wrong, whether it is abortion or euthanasia, shouldn’t make us lose sight of the basic distinction between friend and foe.
In the culture war, Fred is indisputably on the right side. Rudy and Hillary are on the wrong side. Mitt is a double agent. Nobody knows which side he is on. He may not know himself.
Your screen name is entirely appropriate. The original Tailgunner Joe did a noble cause great damage by failing to draw essential distinctions. You shouldn’t be in such a rush to follow in his footsteps.
I don't want YOU deciding when to protect MY life. The issues are too gray for law to address. That is why it is left to husbands/or parents, so that they can act in accordance with their familial beliefs and what they know of what the incapacitated spouse or child would want.
Ditto that.
And my take on those who wave the white flag of “pragmatism,” well, see my tagline ;-)
Having fun?
Fred Thompson took note of the fact that the mushy middle really got uncomfortable about the Schaivo case, although there is near unanimity here. He's running a general election campaign at this point, knowing good and well that whatever he says during the primary season will be hurled back at him by the MSM after he has secured the nomination.
It would have been more effective of Fred to have stated that a man who had already taken on a new common-law 'wife' who he had two children with was not the proper person to make decisions for Terry Schaivo's life. That decision should have been in the hands of her parents, who were still dealing with the burden of caring for her on a daily basis, and who were shut out of not only the decision making process, but from even being able to know the disposition of her remains.
The MSM has been very silent on how this man has moved on from his committment to Terry, because they know it invalidates his claims as to "what she wanted".
That poor woman is gone and no amount of bring it all up again is going to accomplish anything except to make people suffer and argue. Let her rest in peace and get on with your lives.
“You can’t scold voters into being happy with your candidate.”
No, but maybe we can use common sense and logic to help them see they’ll be happier with any of the Republicans running sitting in the White House than they will be with any of the Democrats. It is not the visceral that is required to see we need to unite around our candidate and accept something less than a full plate to avoid getting a buffet of what we don’t want from total Democratic control of the federal government. It is the visceral that tells someone to stay home and pout on election day if you don’t get your way.
You were saying — “Then, I suppose God agreed with Michael’s timing. Because she did die, didn’t she? I guess that was when God wanted her to go.”
Well, that kind of situation in which people make “reasoned” determinations about what God’s intentions were, give rise to a lot of interesting types of “rationale” for what God does do.
I’m thinking about one particular one (which I consider a theological heresy), which is called Openness Theology. This is the situation in which God does not know what is going to happen tomorrow, just like you don’t know. God can make intelligent guesses and deductions, and since God knows a bit more (detail and facts) than you do, his “guesses” are better than yours. But, in the long run, God has to wait until “tomorrow” to find out what is going to happen, just like you do. That’s one primary aspect of Openness Theology.
So, those who adhere to that theology would say that God didn’t know what was going to happen to Terri. He was anxiously awaiting the court decisions (and perhaps looking at CNN, or ABC or NBC) just like you were. So, Terri’s demise wasn’t in God’s control at all. He was waiting to find out, just like you were.
Like I said, that’s totally heretical, according to the Bible that I read.
So, if God does knows, very precisely and exactly the end from the beginning and every detail intimately and nothing escapes His attention and nothing is out of His control and nothing surprises Him (that is, being caught “unaware”), then where is free will and how does God figure into everything that goes on, in that He is in control of it all.
Well, people need to distinguish God’s permissive will and His stated and desired will and His active and “to-be-performed” will. And if it were God’s intended (i.e., “to-be-performed will”) that Terri be taken back in 1991, then it would have happened because nothing can thwart or get in the way of God’s actual to-be-performed will in anything He chooses to do.
However, not all things that happen are His actual to-be-performed will or his desired will. Much will be in His permissive will, which can go against His desired will (of what the best course of action would be).
Very simply put — God allows things to happen, because of the free will choice of the many people that may be involved, even though it is diametrically opposed to His normal (”in character”) desired will. And I think we can say He does that, because He does “have a plan” which transcends and goes far beyond the everyday matters of what we do (but that’s not minimizing the everyday things in God’s plan, though).
And also, God very clearly states this in Romans 8:28 — “And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.”
Even though Terri suffered an ignominious end of being starved to death, with the full purpose of killing her and she was unable to do anything about it, we can say that if this happens to anyone of us who are one of His, that — definitely — Romans 8:28 applies to it, no matter how horrific or ignominious or degrading or helpless or evil or seemingly totally stupid and ignorant.
And that means that even if she was murdered (attempted) by her husband and even if he attempts to get the legal system to “finish her off” from his botched attempt — it doesn’t mean that this was God’s “to-be-performed” will (which cannot ever, under any circumstances, be thwarted). This comes under God’s permissive will in that He has allowed evil and sin to continue “for a time” (as He says in the Bible) in order to carry out His plan for salvation for the world, and that Romans 8:28 applies to anyone of His own, who are caught in the terrible grips and results of this kind of evil and sin in the world.
So, once again, If God had wanted her dead in 1991 (his “to-be-performed” will) she would have been dead. AND, if she ends up being dead in 2005 (which is true) — *neither* does it mean that this was God’s “to-be-performed” will.
It’s clear, to anyone who knows God and what God has said in the Bible, this was no more than God’s permissive will, which has continued from the time of the sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, to the present time — but will one day be put to a total and complete stop (according to the plan of Salvation that God has put into place).
The Bible makes it clear that He has “passed over” the sins of the past (and the present), and holds the judgement of those many sins until the time of the “wrath of God” during which time He dispenses it all, fully, at one particular period of time — all the wrath that He has “saved up” from the beginning, in the Garden of Eden until now.
So, judgement is coming, for the many things that have happened, that were part of God’s permissive will, but not His desired will and He will repay for all those evil deeds and actions. Pay-up time is coming...
Regards,
Star Traveler
You were saying “... no amount of bring it all up again is going to accomplish anything except to make people suffer and argue.”
Ummm..., how about for preventing the next Terri?
Regards,
Star Traveler
I now wish Newt had run.
Well, I don’t propose that anyone “decide when” to protect your life or anyone else’s. Not at all. There’s no “when” to it. It’s simply — protect life at all times at all costs. Nothing to decide...
Regards,
Star Traveler
P.S. — And, of course, if you have read some of what I’ve written, you’ll see that I am not talking about a “life for a life” in the case when someone murders someone else and their life is required or in the case when self-defense is required because of an imminent threat to one’s life (and that applies “nationally” too). In those cases, it’s one life for another life, and not merely protecting a life in absolute terms. I have to put that qualifier in there, because it’s also the same type of qualifier that the Bible has on life, too.
Nah. The man was in Congress for 25+ years with no name recognition.
Given that, I think you have to look at Hunter himself to figure out why he has trouble getting media attention.
Maybe it's the old curse of trying to run for POTUS from Congress -- it's hard to raise yourself above 434 other representatives to establish your qualifications for higher office.
But in any case, the fact that nobody had ever heard of Hunter before, suggests that he was never at the forefront of anything that had national importance or attention.
You can look at post #290 in that regard...
“That’s the real risk, for all of us. Which takes us right back to the original point of not letting yourself compromise more and more every time, because that’s exactly what is leading to a threat to our national security and this country as we know it.”
I don’t feel I am compromising by supporting a candidate who believe about 85% the way I do, rather than one is 100% representative of my thinking which is a near impossibility. It’s not compromise. It’s a recognition of reality that no one is going to be perfectly reflective of my views. If I was giving up issues that are important to me, like national security, fiscal discipline and tax cutting then yes it would be an unacceptable compromise. But I have already said I will not support any candidate who is on the wrong side of those issues, e.g. Ron Paul who is on the wrong side of national security or John McCain who is on the wrong side of tax cuts or Mike Huckabee who is a big spender. Other than that, I can vote for most of the other GOP candidates knowing they’re where I’m at on the most important issues.
The other issues where we diverge are much less important to me in terms of what we’re facing in the world right now with terrorism and rogue regimes arming themselves with nukes and allying with one another against US interest, i.e. Iran and Venezuela buddying up along with Syria. This isn’t fear mongers to garner support for the GOP. It’s the world we live in my friend. Don’t blind yourself to that as a way to justify enabling Hillary Clinton to win by not voting in November 08.
But back to my point, how am I compromising if I support candidates who are right where I am on the most important issues we face and the issues of most relevence to me? I think sorting through what’s important and what’s less important to me in a candidate’s stands is a perfectly reasonable way to make a choice as to who to support.
And contrary to you I don’t think they’re phonies...I trust a person until they give a reason not to rather than assuming all of our GOP candidates are frauds because a few in the past have been. I convict people for their own guilt, not based on what others have done. I believe our candidates are being sincere in where they stand based on their past records of doing or supporting those things in their past or current governing positions that they say they’ll do as president.
Looking at his drop in the polls, it appears he is done. Fred is going in the wrong direction. He has run one of the worst campaigns I have ever seen, alienating a voting block he needed to win the nomination.
I'm not the least bit happy about it because his failure likely leaves the nomination to Giuliani, Romney or Huckabee.
The Republicans deserve to lose for presenting voters with such pathetic group of Presidential candidates.
You’re right; he’s done...
This is why thompson is failing, he is talking like a lawyer.
He needs to turn the lawyer off and talk like a person.
The fact is it WAS an end of life issue. HOWEVER, he should have addressed it in a very different way.
“It was a horrible tragedy that should not have needed to go to the courts, in an ideal world the families should have found a way to work that out. In fact the 11th hour heroic effort of the federal legislature to do something anything only points to the inadequacy of the law in these situations. Personally I do thing the federal government mishandled the legislative aspects. I would support a full investgation as to how to prevent this family tragedies in the future.”
for lack of a better expression “TALK LIKE A HUMAN DAMNIT”
He might have a valid legal point but he is screwing it up in communicaiton. Ronald Reagan Great Communicator he is not.
Dream candidate speech: “The Federal Govt is fighting a war and protecting the border. We will pay for that with Federal Tax dollars. Schiavo? Abortion? Other stuff? Refer to the 10th amendment. Thank you for your support.”
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.