Posted on 01/29/2006 10:06:22 AM PST by NormsRevenge
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., discusses the Republican 2006 Senate agenda during a news conference on Capitol Hill Friday, Jan. 27, 2006. Left to right are Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., Frist, Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Tex. (AP Photo/Dennis Cook)
That's something that bears repeating......
Americans do not want the government involved in such end-of-life decisions.
I don't want the government taking my tax money and giving it to the Palestinians but it does that too.
And because government does so then means that it should do so?
PING
Mandates come from the people -- by definition a solid majority, if not an overwhelming majority. In this case there is no mandate -- but in fact just the opposite -- for government to be involved in end-of-life decisions.
So, do you think the government should just stay out and allow spouses and relatives to murder their inconvenient spouses and relatives without government interference?
Let's have anarchy, let's allow the strong the murder the weak without interference.
THIS is the logical consequence of what you are saying. Are you sure this is really your position?
Americans do not want the government involved in such end-of-life decisions.
>>>
Tough. The prevention of murder is Job #1 for any government.
Twenty five years ago it was 'Americans do not want the government involved in the right to abort.' Now that 40 million Americans have been mass murdered, America is changing its mind.
Sometimes the will of the People is evil, and the job of a just goverment is to turn away that evil will and do what is just, regardless. It's called "leadership."
THIS is the logical consequence of what you are saying.
It's just the illogical inference you're making.
Would you accept it if the husband/wife had no say ... but rather the patient only?
It was the government of Florida that declared she must starve.
Are you saying, Mary, that if, say, a member of my family starves my mother to death, I should stand by and let it happen? And that I should have absolutely no recourse whatsoever?
Bill Frist is a gibbering coward. White House? Forget it, dude, you're history.
Government should be involved in some end of life situations.
We need a l-o-n-g discussion, to determine where to draw the line.
If governments were bound by imputed mandates, we wouldn't need the courts.
It's called dictatorship. In a representative democracy when elected officials don't follow the will of the people they are replaced. That's just how it works. As for the "will of the people" involving abortion, it wasn't the will of the people, it was the will of nine people -- or was it five of nine people? Get your facts straight.
If it weren't for advances in medicine in the first place these "decisions" would have never come about.
How about everyone just write in the wills never whether or not they want to be "brought back".
Then we can let people die when they were suppose to right?
Hopeless Presidential Candidate Frist is overlooking the involvement of the government in the person of a certain probate court judge who somehow found himself an authority on matters of life and death.
So if the majority mandated you to die, it's your duty to comply. Get real. History tells us over and over again how these scenarios play out.
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.