Posted on 02/03/2008 10:18:11 AM PST by wagglebee
Contact: Michael Hichborn of American Life League, 1-540-226-9178
WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Judie Brown, president of American Life League, released the following statement concerning an order by Delaware Court of Chancery Master Sam Glasscockon to give guardianship of Lauren Richardson to her mother, who wants to remove Lauren's feeding tube.
Lauren is 23 years of age and, due to a heroin overdose, is now in a persistent vegetative state. At the time of the overdose, Lauren was expecting the birth of her baby and reports indicate that she was kept alive to allow her to give birth, which she did in February of last year. Her daughter is now about to celebrate her first birthday, but Lauren may never have another birthday.
Of interest is the fact that, during the pregnancy, Lauren relied on feeding tubes and a breathing machine to keep her alive. Today Lauren has a feeding tube only. But there is a struggle going on regarding whether or not Lauren will live or die.
Lauren's case is more than a sad commentary on the plight of a family battling over what each of the opponents believes would be in her best interest. Her story is a testimony to the growing philosophy in this country that some, because of their condition, are better off dead than alive.
Like Terri Schiavo before her, Lauren is not dying nor is she in a terminal condition. She has been diagnosed as someone in a persistent vegetative state, someone who is very much alive but locked in her body and unable to express her desires to anyone. The only thing Lauren is relying on is a feeding tube without which she will starve to death. Lauren's mother, who is Laurens guardian, wants the feeding tube removed while Lauren's father is fighting to keep Lauren alive.
This family is in our prayers. We hope that, in the interest of respecting Lauren's dignity as a human being whose future improvement or lack thereof is known only to God, the court will listen carefully to those who argue in favor of Lauren's right to life. It is a tragedy beyond description when any human beings fate rests solely on the subjective opinion of others, some of whom truly believe that patients like Lauren have no quality of life and therefore are better off dead.
Pro-Life groups ARE NOT trying to make Lauren a "poster child" or even make a statement, they are trying to save an innocent woman's life.
Here’s the most straightforward post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1953107/posts?page=375#375
I added the part in parentheses just now to put this post in context of those leading up to it for clarification.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1953107/replies?c=338
An individual CANNOT interfere with someone’s right to free speech, only the government can.
So, Coulter, Horowitz, Tancredo, and any other of a number of conservative speakers being shouted down, not allowed to speak are legally OK with you?
No person’s free speech rights trumps another, ONLY elitists believe that one person’s voice should carry more weight than another’s.
Is that a long yes?
Could I afford to? Yes.
Will I respond to your strawman attempt to change the subject? No.
"Vee ver joost vollowing orders!"
And you are free to ignore the morality of it. Which your posts make clear is what you prefer to do.
Don't let your imagination cloud your judgement. You may think you know what I prefer, but my guess is that you are wrong.
You posted to me and it had no reference point. If that was a ploy, you didn’t succeed.
You said; Juan McCain said his colleagues were motivated to help Terri. He didn’t say he was... to which I replied "Makes my point doesn’t it?" If you go back to my post that you first replied to maybe you will see that what you said was my point. But I doubt it.
Your posts have made your position abundantly clear. Why back away from it?
Thanks for some context, fellow genius.
-------
I don't disagree that the idea that someone can 'pull the plug' is a dangerous one, and needs to be fought.
The problem is that your statements throughout this thread have been totally contradictory.
Here you say that it's a dangerous idea to "pull the plug" (though there is no "plug" to pull, Lauren needs food and water just like the rest of us). However, you also believe that this is some sort of Divine retribution, while earlier you advocated purposely starving her as punishment for what COULD have happened to her baby (but didn't). What is this other than YOU wanting to play god?
Here is your post (with added emphasis):
| American Life League: Do Not Remove Lauren’s Feeding Tube |
||||||
| Posted by Balding_Eagle to Ronaldus Magnus On News/Activism 02/03/2008 7:22:16 PM EST · 65 of 116 All that is fine in theory, and perhaps in a courtroom. However, we do know what lead to this, and along the way she put her baby at extreme risk. If that action alone doesn’t deserve death, please tell me what will deserve the death penalty. In the process of nearly killing her baby, she slipped into this coma. Many people would prefer to see her starve to death for her actions against the baby alone. Include me in that group. They need a different case to advance what is otherwise a noble cause. This case, defending a would-be killer, just sullies and discredits everyone involved. Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies |
||||||
You claim not to have the same agenda as the culture of death, but that is becoming impossible to believe.
Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be. (James 3:10)
NO. Money has NEVER been brought up in this case. I have no idea what the family's financial situation is. YOU are trying to make an issue that doesn't exist. And the FACT remains, whether you agree with it or not, that federal programs exist for these situations.
Yet, you're willing to be quite vocal about the artificial extension of someone's life, and equally vocal that your resources not be tapped to provide it.
One would think that if the extension of this person's life was important to you, you would be anxious to contribute. And you must know that the "federal programs that exist for these situations" uses money collected from those who would object to this use of their money.
So, advocating the use of the "federal funds available" means you're willing to force unwilling others to finance your causes at the point of a gun.
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.