Posted on 03/25/2005 6:27:16 PM PST by steampower
I'm not really worried about a new round of genocide in this country - I'll get worried again when the socialists take over for good...
But not fearful of Nazis coming after me. I'd feel sad because they will have forced me to kill them...
"The Church does not advocate lawlessness."
First off, I haven't advocated lawlessness. But, while we are on the subject, you are aware of what Aquinas thought of an unjust law? An unjust law being one that offends against the natural law? Aquinas thought such a law was no law at all. Have you ever read Antigone, Deacon? The Church has a long history of supporting a natural law, or higher law reading of positive law. At some point, I think must Catholic theologians would agree, we have a greater duty to the higher law than positive law. I am finding it difficult to distinguish this particular moment in history from such a contingency.
There is a detail of Pinnellas Park police standing death watch around a hospice in Florida so that a woman may be starved to death. This woman has been denied a feeding tube as well as hydration or food by mouth. If you do not see the injustice in this, then I think then you have lost all true ability to reason.
The hysterics and emotional outbursts in these posts is some consolation to me. At least most of us still have the moral sensibility to be shocked by this event. Your supposed equanimity I read as callousness and moral obtuseness only.
I went to the link and read the whole thing twice. It seems to me, that even for patients deemed to be in PVS, that they recommend in favor of hydration and nutrition.
Under item 6
"In light of these concerns, it is our considered judgment that while legitimate Catholic moral debate continues, decisions about these patients should be guided by a presumption in favor of medically assisted nutrition and hydration. A decision to discontinue such measures should be made in light of a careful assessment of the burdens and benefits of nutrition and hydration for the individual patient and his or her family and community. Such measures must not be withdrawn in order to cause death, but they may be withdrawn if they offer no reasonable hope of sustaining life or pose excessive risks or burdens. We also believe that social and health care policies should be carefully framed so that these patients are not routinely classified as "terminal" or as prime candidates for the discontinuance of even minimal means of life support."
Big Sky Guy, you talking about *husband* Michael ("When is that B*TCH gonna die?") Schiavo? ;-)
"The Church does not advocate lawlessness."
First off, I haven't advocated lawlessness. But, while we are on the subject, you are aware of what Aquinas thought of an unjust law? An unjust law being one that offends against the natural law? Aquinas thought such a law was no law at all. Have you ever read Antigone, Deacon? The Church has a long history of supporting a natural law, or higher law reading of positive law. At some point, I think must Catholic theologians would agree, we have a greater duty to the higher law than positive law. I am finding it difficult to distinguish this particular moment in history from such a contingency.
There is a detail of Pinnellas Park police standing death watch around a hospice in Florida so that a woman may be starved to death. This woman has been denied a feeding tube as well as hydration or food by mouth. If you do not see the injustice in this, then I think then you have lost all true ability to reason.
The hysterics and emotional outbursts in these posts is some consolation to me. At least most of us still have the moral sensibility to be shocked by this event. Your supposed equanimity I read as callousness and moral obtuseness only.
Nah! I'm talking about Randall Terry. ;)
Well, as a non-catholic, I can say with a straight face that the opinion of Aquinas means very little to me. See, America is a constitutional republic, not a land where religion trumps law. I'm sure that disappoints you, but it's the truth all the same...
"Crazy old fart"
That remark was really common and uncalled for.....
I actually knew that, honey. ;-) And hi, my Big Sky Guy.
It wasn't all that common - he's the only one who made the remark. I'd say it's quite unique... ;)
I don't do hysterics. It results in saying things one wishes one had not said.
You interpret rejection of characterizations of Jeb Bush as unconcerned as callousness.
One can be opposed to the treatment of TS and, at the same time, reject the calls for violence against certain players.
Is that defined as someone who would lambast politicians who overstep their constitutional limits on any issue, unless it is an issue they feel really strongly about? Just curious ;0)
Accusing Governor Bush of helping to murder their daughter through "judicial tyranny" is absurd.
Judicial tyranny for fifteen years, with Jeb Bush and other conservatives leading the charge?
Insane.
You stop that common sense approach right now, Mister, or there's gonna be trouble...
There is not a show that goes by where he does says something that is factually wrong.
Hi there Miss Behave! :)
Sorry, I used our local term for Low-class in describing the post.
:-)
Give it up and try again tomorrow, idiot.
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.