Posted on 03/31/2005 5:25:20 AM PST by mal
Do you remember a fellow called Robert Wendland? No reason why you should. I wrote about him in this space in 1998, and had intended to return to the subject but something else always intervened — usually Bill Clinton’s penis, which loomed large, at least metaphorically, over the entire era. Mr Wendland lived in Stockton, California. He was injured in an automobile accident in 1993 and went into a coma. Under state law, he could have been starved to death at any time had his wife requested the removal of his feeding tube. But Rose Wendland was busy with this and that, as one is, and assumed there was no particular urgency.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.co.uk ...
That's your opinion that it is inconsistent because you disagree with the outcome. I am assuming -- correct me if I'm wrong -- that you think justice in this instance means an outcome favorable to the Schindlers. If that's your premise, then yes it would seem inconsistent. However, if we were to enter into any civil or criminal dispute simply to accept a predetermined outcome then there is no need for courts of law. We might as well solve our disputes like they did in the days of Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton.
Ping
What in the hell are you talking about?
You infer that he has written a directive keeping him alive "at all costs" just because he is on a temporary feeding tube to help him regain his strength?
I don't get it.
It is horrible that he (and unfortunately a lot of people that I have heard on various radio call-ins) did not acknowledge that Terri was as she was. She was not the vibrant, happy twenty-something that Michael married, but when she smiled at the sound of her parents' voices, she was a human being with a right to more than her husband ever gave her.
No, I placed his(Birch) exact words for you to see. There should have been no decision except for the constitutionality of the law when the Schindlers presented their suit. Since the courts took the application it was admission that they had jurisdiction. Justice, in this instance, is to review, de novo, the acceptance of hearsay evidence from a party who stood to gain from his hearsay evidence at the expense of the life of a citizen of the United States. That was not done.
Bump
Thanks for posting, Pokey.
Thanks, Calpernia!
You're way off base. The court cannot decide issues that are not presented before it, and the constitutionality of the law was not presented.
Since the courts took the application it was admission that they had jurisdiction.
No, the court had jurisdiction because the law specifically granted jurisdiction -- a right that is well within the purview of Congress.
Justice, in this instance, is to review, de novo, the acceptance of hearsay evidence from a party who stood to gain from his hearsay evidence at the expense of the life of a citizen of the United States. That was not done.
No, justice was to see that Terri's wishes were carried out. Terri made her wishes known seven different times. I am well aware that even if she had made her wishes known a hundred times that would still not be enough to satisfy the crowd that is perfectly willing to foist upon her a life they would not want for themselves. Today she is whole again and in Paradise. As heartbreaking it is for those she left behind, it is her wishes.
It certainly was. When the Schindlers presented the application to the federal court, it was the federal courts duty to determine it's legality. The Schindlers did not present their petition under the protection of the law to the 9th circus.
I suggest you re-read the rulings. The constitutionality of the law was not argued in court.
I suggest you read it for the first time.
thank you for necessary unexcerpting
Read the doctrine contained in the following post,..it explains to the believer why human intervention in death isn't appropriate,...in the case you've cited, the officer will now undergo a judgment seat review for his decisions and actions before the Lord. If the person he killed, hadn't yet accepted Christ in faith, then the execution merely prolonged a living condemnation towards promoting and eternal condemnation of that soul. Hardly a compassionate, humane, action to eliminate misery.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1357792/posts?page=1068#1068
I don't care about some doctrine that man promotes. I care about the word of God. This is His Word.
Exd 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
Mat 25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
Mat 25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] not to one of the least of these, ye did [it] not to me.
Terri was murdered. If you share it that, may God have mercy on your soul.
As we continue in faith, we live by doctrine (pistis in the Greek refers to the initial saving faith to the unbeliever and to post salvation doctrine inculcated in the soul for the believer).
My response referenced the article you provided of an officer who shot an injured man, believing he was acting mercifully.
The Law directing us not to murder doesn't imply we are not to defend legitimate authority, where appropriate, by deadly force.
There are many who may be rather confused as to what action is appropriate when following the law you have provided who have not inculcated doctrine in their soul. Those believers who have not inculcated doctrine in their souls might also obey they law, but error in moral degeneracy by failing to act responsibly per the Word doctrinally.
In the case of the officer, he might have sinned by killing his fellow man by believing the death would lessen physical suffering, not realizing that in some situations the physical suffering might be a testing of the soul to remain faithful in the spirit.
In the case of Terri, a spectrum of faulty and confused reasoning has been presented from both sides justifying many positions. I suspect her situation is only understood by God, or might be simply a mystery to the angels.
I see I misunderstood your message. I beg your forgiveness.
No begging required,..enthusiastically and joyfully delivered.
Psa 133:1 [[A Song of degrees of David.]] Behold, how good and how pleasant [it is] for brethren to dwell together in unity!
Psa 133:2 [It is] like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, [even] Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments;
Psa 133:3 As the dew of Hermon, [and as the dew] that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there the LORD commanded the blessing, [even] life for evermore.
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.