Posted on 05/02/2005 5:06:09 AM PDT by Quaker
Correct. And I am free to comment on their hypocrisy.
And the Mods are free to take their hypocrisy into account during decisions.
After all, if one hates the forum so, perhaps one should leave it.
Where did you get the idea that "life" is the capstone of American principals? American lives have been sacrificed time and time again to the one over-riding principal that this Nation was built upon and that is the principal of "liberty". The men who built this country risked all for that principal. You besmirch their sacrifices. You are a simple narrow minded extremist. A one issue wonder. Quit boo-hooing and stomping your feet because life is not how you wish it to be in your little place in it and you didn't get your way. And quit beating on the corpse of of poor Terri Schiavo. You have no shame.
I am the last one who deserves that. I am not the one demanding that artificial intervention be forced upon a poor woman to keep her alive in a form of living death.
God did not create Man to live with tubes going into him. That is a man made decision. While it is the right of one to have it done to himself--we do have free will--do not equate it with the decisions of God. That is almost blasphemous.
What distinguishes the higher forms of life--not just Man--from the lower forms--are the cerebral functions. That is the way we were all Created. Your suggestion that life and death are absolutes, is taking verbal interpretation of reality to the theatre of the absurd. Behind those words, there are millions upon millions of one cell creatures, of different varieties, in each of us; some dying every day, others being formed. The humanity part, comes in our cognitive function--which is also seen by most philosophers as the venue of the soul.
You, not I, however, seek to impose your vision of the Metaphysical on others. You, not I, would have overthrown the judicial process in this case, becuase you did not like the result. You will not find any place, where I have tried to interject a personal notion into such a case, anywhere.
Oh, my gosh!! I had to hit the abuse button for the first time the other day. I can't even tell you what someone posted; it was evil beyond evil. Apparently, there are some evil people who hate our guts. (It happened on a Terri thread.)
Anyhoo, I MISS TERRI!!!!!!!!!! And I'm not gettin' over what they did to her. Can't imagine the agony her family is suffering. And yet they continue to be an example of Christian love and kindness. Amazing people!!
Say, I noticed that I only care about the Terri threads anymore. I hardly ever wander over into the other posts and threads. It's like I just can't get over this. Even in my personal life, I am seemingly stuck here. Can't believe they did that to her and they forced us all to watch in helplessness. My husband says I need to move on. Having trouble. I know I'm not alone. What shall we do?
I am not begging any question. I am asking a simple question. Does a person by virtue of their physical condition have their right to live fall into the hands of another to decide, absent any conviction of a capital offense? Does a disabled person, one incapable of making intentions known, have unalienable rights? Does the concept of unalienable rights still apply in this country? Seems to me the Founders considered those important, since they are mentioned in one of our important founding documents. Last I checked, unalienable (inalienable) meant "incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred". If we make the right to continue living subject to the decision of another, the concept of unalienable rights is swept away.
The Court heard your position advocated by skilled lawyers. It simply did not accept their arguments. Its holding against those arguments was upheld, repeatedly, on appeal.
Then the Court failed to uphold one of the founding principles of justice in this country. Could that be a reason why many here are concerned about it?
You may disagree, but you have no right to overthrow the system--or suggest overthrowing the system--because you do not like the result in an individual case.
I, and Thomas Jefferson, disagree with you on this point.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
If indeed the courts are in the process of eroding and abolishing the concept of unalienable Rights, then the Republic no longer functions in the manner envisioned by the Founders. And, if so, there is no need for me or anyone here to advocate or engage in any attempt to "overthrow the system", because it has already fallen.
Just like those who want to kill off the disabled or brain damaged. Just like the Nazi's did in fact do. Killing innocent people isn't a traditional legal norm or value.
And the "end does not justify the means". Killing off people because you don't believe they have value or you want to save some money doesn't justify what was done to Terri.
Any sane person would not be happy with the "results of the judicial determinations in the Schiavo case". The judge isn't God. The courts aren't God. The law is flawed and needs to be changed.
1. No one, on this thread, is advocating euthanasia. The question before the Florida Court was not that.
2. Can the silly ad hominem argument. I do not know what George Felos' personal philosophy is, and could not care less. A trial lawyer represents a client--at least he is supposed to--and many times we get our best results for clients for whom we have the least personal sympathy. It really is not relevant to the soundness or unsoundness of the result, whether a lawyer is someone you like or dislike.
3. The major thing that the Nazis did was to trash the rule of Law; to make Judges dependent upon the Hitlerian Will alone. Thus they were able to trash the rights of the traditional German States, and consolidate power in Berlin.
4. Besides that the Nazis did many things. For example, they built super highways. Those were later used to facilitate the killing machine that they launched against their neighbors, but that did not make super highways evil.
But wasn't the other poster criticized for bringing in comments from another forum. And aren't you doing the same? Now, that does seem hypocritical to me. And I didn't read any posts that said anyone hated this forum. Or is that something you're bringing in from another forum too?
Get some psychiatric help?
BBL
Thank you.
Are you a psychiatrist? Do you claim to be anointed by God, since you, not the Courts, here, are decreeing moral imperatives.
Or do you simply lack any sense of proportion.
History shows us that at the Nuremberg trials the German judges invoked as a facet of their defense the concept that they were legally bound to enforce the laws of the Reich. They argued that the Tribunal could not find them guilty of crimes against humanity because everything they did fell within the legal framework established by the legally elected/appointed authorities of the German government.
Where they failed was that they attempted to use the law to justify their actions, i.e., endow morality through legality. This failed. Because clearly their actions were immoral and unjust, and attempting to cleanse the immorality of their acts by appeals to legality carried no weight with the tribunal. And rightly so. The German judges did not trash the rule of law, they embraced a flawed legal system. They trashed something more important than the law, they trashed justice, and moral absolutes.
I never said it was 'the capstone'. In fact, it is the foundation of the foundation. Without life, no other liberty can be enjoyed.
American lives have been sacrificed time and time again to the one over-riding principal that this Nation was built upon and that is the principal of "liberty". The men who built this country risked all for that principal. You besmirch their sacrifices.
They weren't forcibly killed by their government. They freely gave their lives for their country...to protect innocent human life and American liberty. I find your attempt to hide behind their sacrifices to justify the killing of an innocent American citizen contemptible.
You are a simple narrow minded extremist. A one issue wonder.
Personal attacks are the best you can do? Is that how you represent your clients in court, counsellor??
Quit boo-hooing and stomping your feet because life is not how you wish it to be in your little place in it and you didn't get your way.
I only asked for one simple thing: A drink of water for a dying woman. Doesn't seem like much to ask, really.
And quit beating on the corpse of of poor Terri Schiavo.
Can't bring Terri back. But maybe we can prevent others from succumbing to your ideology.
You have no shame.
No, I don't. I did everything in my small power to try and save her.
But perhaps you might want to explore whether you might need to feel a little...
Untrue on the face of it. You have over and over again tried to impose your judgment of what constitutes 'quality of life', and then immediately used that judgment as a justification for willy-nilly revoking Terri Schiavo's inalienable right to live.
They most certainly did trash the rule of law. Germany, like America, was a Federation. It was not a consolidated monolithic State, where morality was centrally decreed; where uniformity of values was enforced; where a central authority decreed moral absolutes for the population.
The Nazis created a "crisis," and assumed whatever power they needed to enforce their morality on the population. Had there been an independent local judiciary, hearing cases involving individual rights, there would have been many checks on that new morality.
It is no accident that the Founding Fathers left the protection of health, safety and morality to the States. It is one of the most important safeguards we have against run away authoritarianism.
You can put lipstick on a pig and call it Marilyn Monroe, but it's still a pig.
You will not find one place, where I have argued for imposing my judgment of what constitutes the quality of life on anyone else. I have invoked the concept to try to put some of the rant about Terry Schiavo in perspective. The point was not to impose an idea, but to suggest a whole wealth of considerations that some folk seem to be overlooking.
But what a silly term you invoke in response. "Willy nilly revoking" her right to live." Seven years of litigation, determining that she would not have wanted to live as less than a functional human being, is hardly "willy nilly." You are simply providing more and more evidence of your total lack of perspective or proportion here.
Referencing what happened in Germany...a process that began almost identically to what we see going on with the euthanasia movement in America today...is hardly 'ad hominem'. And it certainly isn't 'silly'.
I do not know what George Felos' personal philosophy is, and could not care less.
Perhaps you should care. Then perhaps you might undertake to become informed before you write long essays on such an important subject as this.
A trial lawyer represents a client--at least he is supposed to--and many times we get our best results for clients for whom we have the least personal sympathy. It really is not relevant to the soundness or unsoundness of the result, whether a lawyer is someone you like or dislike.
A paragraph that underlines very well one of the main problems with American lawyers and jurisprudence today.
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.