Skip to comments.
Terri's Fight - (Daily Thread/Updates) November 14-18
Various
| November 14, 2003
| sweetliberty
Posted on 11/14/2003 2:06:57 AM PST by sweetliberty
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200, 201-220, 221-240 ... 1,221-1,233 next last
To: bvw
So, killing the unborn, infirm, ill & disabled is a privacy issue, in your opinion. Which supercedes the above persons right to life. Is this your position or am I misreading you?
201
posted on
11/14/2003 2:26:48 PM PST
by
Annie03
(donate at www.terrisfight.org)
To: HiTech RedNeck
It USED to be that LIFE was a fundamental presumption of law, ridiculous to state othewise. Under Natural Law doctrine -- that is the Creator's Law -- life is a duty. We live for purpose, that purpose is the Creator's, our lifes are not our own in that regard.
202
posted on
11/14/2003 2:27:31 PM PST
by
bvw
To: Annie03
Liberals say that the Fifth Amendment applies only in CRIMINAL CASES, not in "private" euthanasia decisions. See what the people have brought upon themselves by being politically and judicially asleep for so many decades now.
To: Pegita
Amen, Amen. Dear Pegita, Thank you for the wonderful prayer. (Post#149)
To: Old Professer
I believe that it was Mao Tse-tung, a popular and beloved figure among some American liberals, who said that "one death is a tragedy, a thousand deaths is a statistic."
To: Annie03
That's a misreading.
206
posted on
11/14/2003 2:29:02 PM PST
by
bvw
To: Budge
There is no slippery slope toward loss of liberties, only a long staircase where each step downward must first be tolerated by the American people and their leaders. I had never heard that great quote before, msmagoo, do you know who said it?
I googled that quote. Bartleby's says it was former Senator Alan K. Simpson who said that and cites the NY Times from September 1982.
Ironically, Simpson is "pro-choice."
The problem with Simpson and many others who fancy themselves civil-libertarians is that they do not see life, either for the very small or the very disabled, as a civil liberty.
To: msmagoo
It was my understanding that the order only gave Michael permission to have the feeding tube removed, not demanded that he do so. Felos is a liar.
208
posted on
11/14/2003 2:29:42 PM PST
by
sweetliberty
("Having the right to do a thing is not at all the same thing as being right in doing it.")
To: FR_addict
It sounds like we need to Freep Judge Greer. I was hoping that Judge Greer finally saw the light and Michael would be removed. Sounds for SURE like we need to Freep the Greer again:-(( This judge is sickening!
209
posted on
11/14/2003 2:29:44 PM PST
by
pollywog
(Psalm 121;1 I Lift mine eyes to the hills from whence cometh my help.)
To: TheSarce
If there are "twenty" judges involved here, then these judges will cover up each others' tracks to protect one another -- like the Sanhedrin or other such bodies. Of course, they probably know the people won't be able or willing to understand what they have done to "the least of these."
To: wisconsinconservative
ping for later
To: FR_addict
Greer "ain't" budging if these other "judges" will cover up his malfeasance and incompetence for him! There will be nothing to come from this guardian Wolfson, as it now appears, for Terri's Law will be struck down before Christmas (my sad prediction).
To: Lone Voice in the hinterlands
Many judges would have figured out a way to dump (the Schiavo) case," said Pinellas County Sheriff Everett Rice, Greer's friend for more than 20 years. "But he stuck by it. He deserves a medal for enduring that alone."
We don't believe in "guilt by association." But I think GOP voters in Pinellas Co., FL, should still retire "Sheriff" Rice in the next sheriff's primary. Rice has surely outlived any usefulness that he may have once exercised. Why? Just consider the disdain that he has for innocent life, which he as a sheriff is required to uphold under the law.
Defeat Rice in the next Republican primary!!!
To: bvw
With the 10 Commandments and similar proclamations officially extirpated from this country's civic life, there is nothing more to preach this. And so we will get more and more civil court end runs around the only Constitutional explicit protection for life which is in criminal cases. Nazi Germany redux, here we come.
214
posted on
11/14/2003 2:34:01 PM PST
by
HiTech RedNeck
("Across this great nation people pray -- do not put out her flame" -- DFU. An unashamed Godsquadder)
To: nickcarraway
"If oprah does a pro-Terri piece it will have a tremendous impactThats the problem. We don't know which way Oprah will present it. I don't even know who will presenting it on Oprah. Her family or her husband.
I just heard that talk radio host (darn, mind went blank) say it was going to be on Oprah. He is the talk radio host who has been talking alot about Terri.
215
posted on
11/14/2003 2:35:00 PM PST
by
Spunky
(This little tag just keeps following me where ever I go.)
To: pollywog
It was another "Republican" -- this Demers -- who told "guardian" Wolfson not to get too far into this case, for there was a good chance that the case would be terminated before a GAL recommendation was needed. This sounds like a trio of Republican judges, Demers, Greer, and Baird, have conspired to "fix" this case. And the FL Republican leadership is hesitant to go after "Republican" judges!!!!
To: HiTech RedNeck; nicmarlo
"and note that food was not legally considered treatment when Terri allegedly made her alleged statements" Apparently it only came to be considered treatment during the course of this case, as someone posted last night. Nic, was that you that posted that?
217
posted on
11/14/2003 2:37:39 PM PST
by
sweetliberty
("Having the right to do a thing is not at all the same thing as being right in doing it.")
To: Lone Voice in the hinterlands
I had not heard of "this Clark." So how much money did the Clark "children" inherit from this convenient removal of a feeding tube? Isn't that a relevant point?
To: bvw
Okay, that is why I asked. But since Terri's right to privacy is what is being argued (same as Roe v Wade) by Felos et al, and the right to life being our number one right, why is the court feeling free to take away her life in interest of her "right to privacy"? Why does this privacy right make it legal to hasten death or abort privately? Since there is a dispute in this case, is not the court ordering an execution - and a technically legal one at that? How is this privacy right helpful to the weakest of our society? How is is protecting us from government interference? I don't think it really is.
219
posted on
11/14/2003 2:38:23 PM PST
by
Annie03
(donate at www.terrisfight.org)
To: sweetliberty
It was my understanding that the order only gave Michael permission to have the feeding tube removed, Oooooooh, if so, switching the guardianship to the Schindlers WOULD stop this, because the Schindlers could have all the "permission" in the world and they wouldn't do it.
220
posted on
11/14/2003 2:38:54 PM PST
by
HiTech RedNeck
("Across this great nation people pray -- do not put out her flame" -- DFU. An unashamed Godsquadder)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200, 201-220, 221-240 ... 1,221-1,233 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson