Posted on 03/25/2005 5:21:18 AM PST by mhking
By your logic, there's no reason to treat anyone who is ill at any stage. Even though some of us (not all) have Heaven to look forward to, it does not mean we consciously try to escape life.
Did you see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1371642/posts MS has again refused for Terri to receive communion today. The Orlando station WFTV reported last night the "husband" said he didn't want anything near her mouth.
FIRST, quality of life is NOT important. If it were we would go to all these African nations where people live in squalor with loss of limbs, diseases, and insects and lack of food etc. Rather than allow ourselves to be filled with compassion, euthanasia would put them out of their misery.
SECOND, Terri is God's Mirror to us ; so we can see our inhumanity to man. Watch all the commentators. If they say "let's move on", because we have this problem or that, they are obviously uncomfortable looking in God's Mirror. That's OK. Maybe it means they still have a conscience. Felos. on the otherhand, loves DEATH and actually gets a kick out of being involved with death. No wonder his former wife couldn't stand him.
------------------------------------------------------------
How arrogant of Neil Boortz, in some respects, he is no better than Judge Greer himself.
A bump for rational Christianity.
Don't bother to flame me as your fanaticism has no effect on me.
The crazed fanatics, and that IS what you are, do not care about Terri. Quite the REVERSE. You are using her to promote your so-called 'Christian' religio-political beliefs.
Thank God we live in a secular state because fanatics can not take over and make slaves of us all.
You hollier-than-thou Pharasees will not tell me I am less Christian than you because I believe 15 years in the obvious state in which Terri Schiavo finds herself in ... is ENOUGH.
Your ravings are splitting the Body of Christ. Perhaps THE sin against the Holly Spirit. I stand before God, in the Name of Jesus Christ and beg you to stop mollesting the brethren. Stop slandering good men following the law. Stop your sickening viscious gossip and hatemongering.
Before you can blast the beam in other's eyes, perhaps you should take out the forest in yours.
Hi Michael,
I really enjoy your posts and most of the time I agree with you but using your logic here: We could say that we should welcome and support abortions because the S.C. has ruled that the decision should lie with the mother and, after all, Jesus is waiting to welcome them with open arms.
Eternity is up to God, but here on earth we must work out justice and then "God's work will truly be our own."
"Your ravings are splitting the Body of Christ. Perhaps THE sin against the Holly Spirit."
The irony of those two statements juxtapositioned together will probably be lost on you.
I have no problem letting Terri go IF IT ISN'T BY STARVING HER TO DEATH!!!
I would think you are the one perilously on the brink of blaspheming the HS.
Oh and she said "Holly" Spirit. A Freudian slip? Christianity about as genuine as the glitz of Christmas?
Ha! I knew there was a joke in that misspelling somewhere! If not a Freudian slip, perhaps divine comedy?
I'd say no. But if you expect Jeb Bush or George Bush or anyone else to take action that may result in them being prosecuted, etc., then you should be willing to do the same.
I see. So you think you'll be able to vote in people who will be willing to violate a court order. What other stances do they need to have to qualify for your vote? I hope that's not the only one.
Think about what you just wrote. Then ask yourself
Are there ever circumstances under which court orders can be violated?
Are any Christian leaders calling for defiance of the order?
Are any legal experts calling for defiance of the order?
Historically, what other court orders have been properly violated? (Hint: Start with Dred Scott)
The governor, who is sworn to uphold the constitution, is obligated to safeguard this constitutional guarantee of the "inalienable right ... to enjoy and defend life," regardless of physical disability, he argued.
"The governor may not disregard that obligation even if a member of the judiciary has ordered otherwise," Kennedy said. "He is not bound by a court order that is at odds with a constitutional guarantee."
Kennedy cited Thomas Jefferson, who said, "[T]o consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."
Abraham Lincoln, Kennedy pointed out, disregarded the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Dred Scott when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
Amen!
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.