Posted on 03/28/2005 2:13:58 PM PST by thoughtomator
I don't want to be a hotlinker, but no matter which side of this you're on, you'll have to admit that this is the funniest take on this case yet - and it's aimed squarely at us.
Ok so give me the short version, "What is the purpose of government regarding life?".
Afterall, THAT is the only victory she really needs.
Those who fought to save her, may have failed on this earth... but their efforts to help her live and their kindnesses to her, will be rewarded by a HIGHER AUTHORITY than Congress, politicians and the courts.
Satan wants us to despair over her death. I will not despair, I will praise God for just the mere opportunity to serve and help one of his helpless ones.
sorry for the error.I am already old and my eyes are too.
This is definitely not the case. I really wanted to know how you know that he is acting out of vindictiveness.
"Maybe because he is hell-bent on causing Terri's REAL family as much pain as possible."
Now, of course, I would like to know how you know that he is hell bent on causing Terri's real family as much pain as possible.
I am simply asking for any proof that you might have concerning either of your assertions.
Does that automatically mean that I am trying to stir the pot?
I can tell without saying that in this context, you won't like my answer. The fed has no purpose on this level. Life as it relates to this line of reasoning is a state issue. Even if you think it's murder (which I don't), murder is a state crime, not a federal crime.
I know for sure that some are libertarians and independents and not Republicans at all.Anti-religious government perhaps.I know quite a few of them are anti-religion.
You might want to check joined dates. Some of us have been here awhile.
-Eric
I was listening to the radio to some talk shows about an hour ago---
I tend to go back and forth on 3-4 channels and listen depending on the subject--
I turned to Michael Savage show and he was ranting and raving about how the Bushs let Terri and the country down because they didn't go after the judge more---therefore not conservative enough--
I turned to a local conservative talk show and the host was saying that he was appalled by the Bushs getting involved so personally and dragging the congress with them--therefore not conservative enough---
LOL--they both complained about the Bushs not being conservative enough, but the were on the opposite side of what they should/shouldn't have done.
I think that is what is going on here on FR--they are both damned if they do, and damned if they don't...
I see it as you saying things and when asked about it you back out.
If there is legitimate basis for declaring Terri to be PVS, you should be able to do one or other of these things.
Also, you are comparing yourself to Terri and you wouldn't want to be like her. This isn't about you. Her parents and doctors have a major different view of what YOU have about Terri. I think I will side with them as most do.
She didn't receive treatment for starters, no speech therapy, no physical therapy etc. Ever wonder how she would be - if she was "allowed" to have JUST these TWO necessities?
I strongly doubt your spouse would deny you anything when it came to getting you better.
LOL!!!! Very good, Tx!!
"Other than working to change bad laws that allowed this injustice to happen (which I've advocated from day one) is there something else you think can be done?"
OK. Petition to remove that piece of crap %#$(@ Schiavo as her guardian, using the various and sundry evidences of lack of expenditures earmarked for her care that have gone unspent on same; conflict of interest; neglect; abandonment of spousal privilege; torture; violation of ADA; refusal to treat potentially fatal infections; etc. Appoint an ad litem guardian that is Catholic, and fly her the hell out of the US to Vatican City.
You may NOT comment with obscenity. But you know that because you ATTEMPTED to cover your own obscene remark with an *.Such a horrible, obscene word!
Actually, most humans do it every day.
The others, of course, are full of it.
-Eric
You are coming across as someone who is anxious to see this lady dead
BINGO!
Too bad that it does not mention miracles.
But according to the law He IS the only husband she has.
BUT not the one "wife" HE has.
Excellent point, darling.Thanks, but now I'm just buried in responses. :snicker:
-Eric
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men
If protecting life is not a function of government then a state could be free to terminate all citizens dependant on government for substance, people like Terry. Or instutitude capital punishment for minor crimes. I wish you could see that, we must protect the rights of the weakest amoung us, other wise we will all lose our rights as the wolves thin the heard.
The statutes in 1999 were amended to allow refusal of artificial food and hydration based upon "clear and compelling evidence". But you haven't cited me any statute to allow the denial of oral food and hydration.Perhaps the clear medical view that this would cause nothing but choking.
-Eric
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.