Posted on 03/27/2005 6:34:39 AM PST by YOUGOTIT
The saga of Terri.
Reading your column raised several thoughts, one of which is this: If, as the non doctor judge says she is brain dead and is considered a non-human then she would not know if she were alive or not. So what would be the reason for not keeping a non-feeling, non-human alive? She is NOT on life support as the left-wing mainstream media claims, she just cannot feed herself. Babies cannot feed themselves, stroke victims in many cases cannot feed themselves for many weeks or months, paraplegics cannot feed themselves, people with Alzheimer’s cannot feed themselves, people who have lost their limbs cannot feed themselves, and people born with several birth defects cannot feed, walk or talk. We even send them to school when, in some cases, there is no evidence that they will learn anything. So what are the criteria for withholding water so that one dies of thirst?
One of the most horrible ways to die is from lack of water. This torture was used in the middle ages only on those who the kings and other dictators wanted to suffer long and hard.
If Terri is brain dead and is no longer considered a human with rights then she should have been put to sleep as we would a dog or horse or cat or any other animal that we do not want to suffer. But because some black robed dictators decide that they and they alone are the law, (in direct violation of the Constitution), this woman was sentenced to die from thirst.
The mainstream media and other left-wing fascist anti-American organizations like the ACLU and others say that the starving or withholding of water makes one happy and one will die with great bliss. It is evident that they subscribe to or are disciples of the ideals of Nazi Germany and Communist USSR.
You say mind your own business, but the German people minded their own business and Hitler killed over 7,000,000 people, some in the exact same way as is being done to Terri. The citizens of Russia minded their own business and Stalin killed over 25,000,000 again some in the same way as Terri.
One must understand that we live under the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the land. It is evident that judges have decided that they no longer respect or follow the Constitution and even though the Constitution says that the judiciary will have NO enforcement rights the local police have decided to follow the rulings of a probate judge in direct violation of the supreme law of the land.
Judges have no check and balance and are responsible to NO one. The Constitution give the congress the power to impeach but our elected representatives have become WIMPS who are figureheads so they can play like they are in command when in fact the judiciary is in command and our elected representatives have no power left. The judiciary and the left-wing fascist organizations like the ACLU have taken our Constitutional rights. The killer of the 9 year old girl in Florida has more rights that Terri. But then the anti-American left-wing likes to help scum bags who violate little children as indicated by one story in the paper today that says most child molesters do not strike again (a LIE).
A dog or cat or rat has more rights that Terri. If you were to let a horse or dog or rat die of thirst you would be put in jail by the same judiciary who killed Terri.
The Congress of the United States needs to take back their Constitutional power from the anti-Constitution judiciary. Unless they do so then they should go home and not charge the American Taxpayer for their service as they are committing fraud in trying to make us believe that they have some power, when in fact a judge can order them to step down and cease and go home at any time.
Congress has the power to put the judiciary back in the three branches of government where it belongs. Cut off the money and dissolve all courts inferior to the Supreme Court until the Congress can appoint some judges that will protect and defend the Constitution.
If we the people want to maintain our freedoms we must pressure the congress to follow their oath and support and defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and DOMENSTIC.
I've no idea what you are talking about, I was talking about Terri Schiavo.
You didn't comment on why Michael gave her medication for her periods so I don't suppose you'll comment on why she's being given morphine since supposedly she can't feel pain. You might want to check out her bone scan that Greer has tried repressing so it doesn't get presented to higher courts.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1371794/posts
You Said:
"No law has been 'made by judges'. Nor should it be. The law allows people to make their own decisions on this matter and defends their right to do it. The next of kin is consulted if a person is not conscious to make their own decision."
I said law is being made every day by judges. Which is unconstitutional.
"Terri's family has a lawyer representing their side."
My bad. Thats what I meant - Terri's family has a lawyer representing (what they think are) her interests, because she can't.
One judge, and only one judge, decided (contrary to the evidence) that Terri wants to die. There has never been a de novo hearing. The law that was just signed by President Bush required a de novo hearing, and still she hasn't had one. So please quit repeating the lie that she has had several de novo hearings. She hasn't had a single one.
I agree with Ralph Nader. [Fox & Friends approx 8:30 AM March 28, 2005] She shouldn't be starved because of some casual comments she made.
"She shouldn't be starved because of some casual comments she made."
Obviously it would be better if she'd made a legal document in writing, but that is the only evidence available, which was testified to by more than one person.
And pretty paltry evidence, it seems.
1. Did anyone warn Terri, at the time, that her words would be used to actually starve her? Shouldn't someone have given her a "Miranda style warning?"
2. How do we know Terri wasn't depressed at the time? Depressed people may say they don't want to be a burden on others...but we don't insist they be killed to remove the burden. State of mind can make a difference in the responsibility someone has about what they say.
3. There may be evidence that she said, "no tubes," but there is no clear and convincing evidence that was what she would want for her final decision, BECAUSE she did not understand that this was her final word
Intent. Intent. Intent
4. If she even made that comment, perhaps she was just saying it to bring comfort to a listener in earshout, who she knew had recently "unplugged" someone. People say things they don't believe in order to make someone feel good.
Intent. Intent. Intent
If I want to get away from a persistent salesperson, and I say, "I'll come back and buy that refrigerator, so give me your business card," I don't have to buy the refrigerator.
Even if I go back I don't have to buy that refrigerator. I haven't put anything in writing. Even if I put something in writing, I might have 48 hours in which to indulge my "buyer's remorse."
5.It's doubtful that Terri realized what she was doing at the time would be legally binding It's doubtful that she realized she was making a declaration of intent that she wanted to be starved.
6. Did Terri ever say she wanted Michael to be her health care agent? The judge ruled that her comment to Michael did not count. So that means Michael's right to kill her is based on comments made by others.
As I said, Terri's comments are all the evidence we have. Of course, by marrying someone, she implicitly gave that person the rights of next of kin, removing them from her parents.
That is all normal.
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.