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killing Terri because she had an inherent right to life and there was no clear evidence that she wanted food and water withdrawn.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 ...
“Think I’m suffering from politics fatigue.”
Hang in there, only one year to go :(
“Why should I vote for the under 50% candidates and weaken the party?”
I think your percentages are entirely arbitrary based on your own candidate preferences, so the question really isn’t deserving of an answer. I don’t deal in straw men. It’s a logical fallacy.
I will leave it at this to say that with most all of the GOP candidates, Ron Paul excepted, you are getting good conservatives on most of the issues even if they’ve strayed on a few, especially on the all important issue of national security. The problem is, you think if you’re not getting 100% of what you want you’re getting next to nothing. Look at the REAL records of our candidates, not just what some blogger or radio host tells you to think about them in the service of their candidate of preference, (all the while violating Reagan’s 11th commandment in attacking other Republicans—while hypocritically decrying our lack of a Reagan in the race.) I think you’ll find right down the line our candidates have conservative credentials on many of the issues, if not most, to recommend them. And even if as you claim you have to take 10%, which I don’t believe for a second is the case with even the most liberal of our candidates it’s still better than getting 100% of what you don’t want from complete Democratic control of the government and the courts. Think about it.
The Declaration of Independence is a wonderful document. It is important in our history and as a lynchpin of who we are as a people. But, it is not really a founding document of the United States of America. The United States of America as we now know it didn’t even come into existence until 12 years later with the ratification of the Constitution in 1788. In the meantime, we continued first as the independent former colonies and then in 1777 under the newly formed government under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. Which, by the way is not a jurisprudential document in our present legal system either.
You are reacting in an understandable but emotional way to a beautiful document. But, at least on this asteroid, it’s not the law. Your reasons for rejecting Fred Thompson are your own, no problem. But, they aren’t particularly persuasive or sound. They’re purist. You seem to be somebody who’d rather be right than successful.
You said — “Where does that appear in the Constitution?”
Now, come on..., you’re being plainly stupid here. The act doesn’t go over very well. Don’t act like an idiot (although you may be one, but I don’t know that... LOL!).
I’ve already stated, very clearly that it’s the first few sentences in our country’s first founding and official document, called the Declaration of Independence, which states the case for forming a new government because of the misgovernment of the former one that they were under.
And they set out to set up the standard by which *no government* could “grant” or “take away” certain rights — thereby being unalienable and solely granted by our Creator God. They then set up the document which would lay out the means of enforcing those things that they had already stated in the Declaration of Independence and protect those specifically stated rights, which they said were unalienable and which the government they were forming was designed to protect.
So, you’re acting like a total idiot who has lost their mind and has a case of amnesia and are destined for the insane asylum or else a nursing home because of a case of Alzheimers...
Regards,
Star Traveler
Can the government force a JW in the States to have a blood transfusion ? This is a hot topic in Britain at the moment because there are many trying to get the law changed or at least debated on whether it should be changed to allow doctors to give a blood transfusion even if the patient requests this not to be done. This is a result of a young women dying shortly after giving birth where she refused a transfusion and the doctors states this decision caused her death.
It’s called Laws of Nature.
Sorry but "somewhat coherent or completely vegatative" doesn't cut it - what she was - was alive and to "end her life" she had to be starved and dehydrated to DEATH!
We don't even allow our pets to be treated that way. No vet in America would put an animal down in such a cruel and inhumane manner.
Not only will God "deal with Michael" He will also "deal" with each and everyone who had a hand in her murder!
That America chooses to deal with "the least of these" in such an evil manner, will not fare well for us in the eyes of our Creator.
Well I’m no liberal if that’s what you’re worried about. And thanks for the welcome.
If God wanted her to die in 1991, she would have. God never fails on anything he sets out to do, ever. God wanted her to live, or she wouldn't have. Thinking humans can stop God's will in any way is similar to Satan thinking that he can stop God's will. He can't, and humans can't. No one can. God's decisions happens all the time, end of story.
Hear Hear! Let Dems attack Dems.
The courts recognize that our country was founded on those principles stated, in which there are those unalienable rights, granted by our Creator God (as specifically stated) and the Constitution is designed to protect them...
Regards,
Star Traveler
I’m not completely certain if that is the case in every instance but I do know of a JW couple who were refusing some similar treatment for their child when the state stepped in and removed him/her from their parents’ control “for her own welfare.”
You may wish it to be a legal nullity, but it isn’t and the Constitution was produced to protect those specific unalienable rights... The founding fathers certainly have no agreement with you...
Regards,
Star Traveler
Protesting another poster’s claim about what is in the Constitution, you quote the Declaration of Independence (see post #125), and when I point this out, you call me an idiot?
Good grief.
“Demcrats are happier with their candidates”
Like departing passengers that were happy with the Titanic.
Well, I have voted for prior candidates so that must not be entirely true... right?
Regards,
Star Traveler
What you seem not to understand is that the Declaration of Independence is NOT a 'founding and official document' of the United states.
I doubt it. Citation please!
I'm sorry to tell you, but in my last conversation with Washington and Madison, they specifically agreed with me. LOL!
You’re a laugh a minute... It’s a good thing people haven’t got you teaching these things in school. I would have my kids removed from any such school...
Come to think about it, I think there are a significant number of parents who have done that very thing for people removing the idea about part that our Creator God has played in the formation of our country and how the founding fathers considered God in all these things and how He helped in the formation of this country.
It would certainly be people like you with those kinds of aberrant ideas about the nature of the Declaration of Independence and what it means for our unalienable rights and what the significance of it is, in terms of these rights being granted by our Creator God and not by any human government — in that these rights are to be protected by our Constitution — that cause parents to remove their kids from any form of these aberrant teachings in schools.
All I can say is that I’m glad I don’t have the opportunity of ever knowing you in person...
Regards,
Star Traveler
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.