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killing Terri because she had an inherent right to life and there was no clear evidence that she wanted food and water withdrawn.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 ...
Well said. I have been watching the news off and on all day and there seems to be a complete blackout of Fred Thompson. Anyone else notice this?
Fred is correct. though the Schiavo case muddies the waters on this matter
The voters. If the voters elect crooks, they deserve to be robbed. If they elect killers, they'll get what they deserve there, as well. And if they don't like who the other guy elects, they can always move.
I believe the Democrat candidate will win the election because the Demcrats are happier with their candidates. Someone like Hunter could unite most of us, but he might lose some on the trade issue.
The MSM is acting like he isn’t even a candidate. The #2 candidate in almost every state and is totally ignored. Very telling.
“He’s IN SECOND PLACE, people!!!”
But, but,..... Pat Robertson endorsed Rudy
LOL, we need the “Not this sh*t” again”, graphic.
Oh goodness. I see you're in for a Constimatushional lesson by those whose misconstruing of the Constitution is second to none.
BTW I agree with you as it is the correct Constitutional point as understood by the Framers.
In my opinion it is unfortunate that the late Reed Irvine chose Cliff Kincaid as his successor at AIM. Mr. Irvine was always coolheaded and convincing, while Mr. Kincaid has struck me on more than one occasion as rather hot-tempered and unreasonable.
Before the infamous Roe v. Wade decision, abortion was never a federal issue, and the 50 states handled it in diverse ways. But now it seems that only a national ban on abortion will satisfy Cliff Kincaid, and anyone, such as Fred Thonmpson, who favors federalism, is “finished”. One wonders what Cliff Kincaid would have thought of Abraham Lincoln in 1860; I don’t doubt that he would have denounced him for trying to appease the South.
Growing up on grandpa’s farm in the Ozarks, I saw gramps plow with an mule that was much like the author. Grandpa called the animal, dumb ass.
I’d take Romney over Rudy as well...but I can’t say Fred’s in “who cares” category if he’s still polling in second place nationally.
And tradesports showed Fred at the top in September.
Were they wrong then...or right? Are they right now...or wrong?
Your using of trade futures shows just how fickle those are.
I’m turning Fox off more and more. Don’t think much of Hannity and Colmes. They seem to work overtime being so fair amd balanced, that I want a straight answer out of someone. They also seem to feature subject matter that titilates, and then they can’t let go of it.
Think I’m suffering from politics fatigue.
And if voters elect a moral conservative for president who believes it’s the federal government’s job to protect human life, anyone who doesn’t like that can move to Europe where the state murder of crippled “useless eaters” is a tradition.
Fred is right.
Federalism means the federal government stays out of your life as much as possible, period. This issue was within the purview of the state of Florida and should have stayed there, no matter what.
Are we to bow to a tyrant merely because he bans abortions and doesn’t allow euthanization of humans? I don’t think that is a line we should cross.
Bingo!
Fred is a small gov, pro-life, pro-gun, pro national security, Federalist with enough integrity and honesty to keep my trusting him completely even through the few disagreements I have with him.
If Fred is finished the GOP is finished cuz its either him, a true conservative, or Rudy McRomney the three amigo's of rinoville. Fortunately for the GOP Fred is far far far from finished despite the rantings of the unhinged here at FR.
Yes... Giuliani, McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Paul, Clinton, Obama, and the rest of the Dims come to mind.
I don’t think it is the business of the federal govt to get involved. I am sorry.
Another yawner by tailgunner.
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.