Posted on 04/05/2005 2:22:08 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Try this on for size. Jefferson wrote and Madison proposed a law criminalizing the breaking of the Sabbath in Virginia.
It's never that easy.
And BTW, the law passed.
Tell that to Greer. He is the one who yelled from the bench that the law was Terri was going to die.
Prior to her collapse, a feeding tube was not legally "life support," so even if she asked to be removed from life support, her request cannot be legally construed so as to unequivocally conclude that she wished removal of a feeding tube.
But, if she asked not to have it [feeding tube], it ain't murder - not even by the Vatican's definition.
I am quite sure you are mistaken on the Catholic church's position as well. It holds that facilitating a hastening of death by withholding basics that support life (food, water, air, shelter) even if it is the patient's wish, is morally wrong. Legal? Maybe. But a good argument can be made that Terri's demise was against the legislative intent expressed in the totality of Florida's Section 765.
So, if she had left explicit written instructions, which were introduced in a trial that had the same outcome as this one, it would have been a "completely unfair" process. Right.
You are aware, I'm sure, that Pope John Paul II was pope in 1980...aren't you?
That's the former Pope to whom I referred.
Interesting quote. Would you have had any problem with walking up to her, putting a gun in her ear and pulling the trigger?
Hang in there, JR!
Thanks for the ping!
OK...well, he's also the same pope that clarified that food and water, even by "artificial" means is normal care, and not a medical act.
The event that spurred the march was the Supreme Court declaring it unconstitutional to execute cold-blooded, heinous murderers.Are we still talking about children or will that child molester who recently murdered that poor girl not have to worry about the death penalty?
why should you be bothered? Ignorance is bliss
Did she leave explicit written instructions? No. So let's debate the facts and not make up our own.
Correct. He said that. The Church hasn't. I've yet to hear any scholar of Catholicism - which I readily concede I am not - say that this statement was intended to change existing Church policy. I've heard many say that it did not.
I think Robin Williams actually summarized it best.
Jesus is coming back. And he's not gonna be looking like Ted Nugent. This time He's gonna look like Charles Bronson and he's gonna be gd pissed off !!
Jeb Bush asked that the case be submitted to a jury, albeit in 2003, IIRC & FWIW.
Anyhow, while it's true that the pope's teaching on this was not infallibly declared, that does not mean that Catholics can just ignore it. It is still binding to a large degree. And, given the Pope's position as head of the Magisterium, that means the Church does indeed teach what he said.
It's just that, in theory, another Pope could alter it.
Given your last post to me, I take it that this results-based determination of what is "fair" or "unfair" process is no longer your position?
Can you tell what about the process you find "unfair"?
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.