Posted on 04/01/2005 7:11:13 AM PST by Destro
A bit off subject, but I have asked this on another thread and have had little luck. Does anyone know of a good article showing Congress's action on the Schiavo case from the PRO congress side? I was on the receiving end of a shouting match with a co-worker who took umbrage when I answered his question "Well we can all agree that congress had no right getting involved, can't we" No. His ramblings mostling involved shouting "separation of power" and "runaway judiciary...there's no such thing, that's just laugable." His other tactic was the usual, shout over your opponent rather than listen. I'd just like to give him something to read....discussion is not an option in his case, but I'd at least like him to see there is a valid Other Side.
Many thanks freepers!
Culture of life will dominate Hillary's run for president and the Republican passed law that allowed Terri's life support to be pulled will be MSM ammo. Partisan zealots have shot themselves in the foot with this one.
...
What I took several parapgraphs to state you put in one sentence.
Lol!
The zealots have moved the RP away from me. I was a conservative republican voter for over forty years, but have now joined the Neolibertarian movement.
...
RP means???
I would read Ann Coulter's article from yesterday.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter1.asp
RP=Republican Party
I'd say the Christian Socialist Party has taken over the Republican Party. True Conservative Republicans are scorned along with Libertarians by the Neorepublicans.
...
Nonsense. The debate was not about who would pay fro her care. The debate was about whether her "guardian", whose motives were clearly suspect and who almost certainly had neglected her best interests for years should have the last word in the decision of life or death. The question is why was the hearsay evidence from Michael that she wanted to die more credible than hearsay evidence from her parents that she didn't.
In this case, if Michaels authority can't be questioned, how can the state ever question a parents authority over a neglected child?
Hardly. You're simply either unable to comprehend the answer already provided, or else deliberately opting to close your eyes to it. Neither one of these, thank goodness, is in any way my responsibility to remedy.
Again: false "either/or" premise. [::shrugs::] Can't make it much simpler than that for you, I'm afraid.
I am talking about the next stage of the debate - the next logical conclusion to this discussion. If you are for "The Culture of Life" to the pint you want Congress involved in the Terri case how can you then take people of the Medicaid roles? Like the Republicans just did? How can you be "pro-life" but let 40 million Americans go without health care? Is that not hypocritical (the Dems will argue)?
a poor woman gets pregnant - you Republicans claim you are pro-life - yet the fact that the poor woman - not on welfare working poor - decides its cheaper to get an abortion then spend the health care costs to give birth to the baby and maintain its health care costs through to the age of 18.
You hypocrtical Republicans scream against abortion but as soon as the baby is born you tell the mother to screw off and get a job to support her little bastard on her own - her own fault for getting knocked up in high school, etc.
How can you not want to help pay for the health care of people like her?
back to you.
I disagree with the premise. Congress did not intervine on the issue of funding, they wanted to re-examine whether MS had acted in her best interest.
Look, the state removed my daughter from my ex-wife because of abuse. That didn't make her a ward of the state. I Custody (guardianship) was transfered to me. For a long list of reasons that can be found on this forum, the same should have been done for Terri. And by the same authority.
This issue was not about funding, we shouldn't let the sociallists frame it that way. Thanks for letting me work on my argument.
Sorry, you are mssing my point - the Dems will move beyond this issue - I am talking about the macro view on this.
Medical tax credits (like child care credits) based on income.
If I was gonna buy your premise
That is why we can't let them frame the debate.
It took two days.
Thanks for the info.
So what about the welfare babies? Do we just let them die? Are only babies lucky enough to pick "good" parents entitled to adequate health care?
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.