Posted on 03/11/2007 7:40:49 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
TAMPA -- He's campaigning hard for support from Republican social conservatives, but presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Saturday he disagreed with the government's intervention in the Terri Schiavo case.
"I think it's probably best to leave these kinds of matters in the hands of the courts," Romney said in a television interview airing today.
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...
This is one of the more vile posts I have ever read on FR.
Well said my friend.
Yep, and many times when we vote for the "lesser of two evils" we end up with the "evil of the two evils."
The Florida government got involved at Michael Schiavo's own invitation in 1998. It was seven years later, one week before Terri's death at the hands of state government, that the feds reacted. Their intervention had no effect whatever on the case.
As a libertarian, I object to government murders. Don't you?
it best to leave these matters to the court.
That is their job.
HOWEVER, (the fun part) what happens when the courts disregard the law and facts? What happens when trial level judges count on the LACK OF MONEY FOR APPEALS to basically do whatever they want.
Most people have ZERO money for appeals. Judges know this. This means the law is irrelevant in the eyes of a judge with a pre-determined outcome.
It was not murder.
Yep...a new low. Hopefully not going to be a common occurrence.
Grievous injury results in physical findings. Based on the complete lack of findings for abuse, arrhythmia is much more plausible.
That's what Ted Bundy said about all those women he "loved" to death.
She had plenty of "function." She responded to, and enjoyed the company of, her family and friends. Anyone who tells you otherwise is pushing a pro-death agenda. I personally interviewed a number of people who all told me the same things about her responses.
And I believe the medical reports, and particularly the autopsy report, which is incompatible with what your friends say they saw. They do not sound like unbiased observers. I have seen sad situations where family will insist a patient has function, pointing to basic brainstem reflexes as proof. It is understandable but sad that families will misinterpret such reflexes because they so want to believe their loved one is still "with it."
The guardian ad litem looked at all such reports, sat with Terri, and concluded she did not respond or have the function you claim. The autopsy supported his conclusion.
But, in any case, mere men have no right to play God and determine when another should exit this vale of tears.
I can respect this opinion, but not attempts to distort the medical facts.
I have read the autopsy report. Of the 40 doctors who claimed she was MCS rather than PVS how many actually examined her? Just as the autopsy can't prove PVS because it is a functional, not anatomical diagnosis, you can't use it as evidence for MCS for the same reason.
As to "relative preservation" yes, as 50% is more than 10%, for example. It doesn't mean she had enough grey matter to function. Please point me to a credible pathologist who disputes the cortical blindness.
Gone for the rest of the day, but I'll look for your link to pathologists' opinions.
Now that is a very bizarre post you just made.
" Is this to be an empathy test? Capillary dilation of the so-called blush response? Fluctuation of the pupil. Involuntary dilation of the iris... "
I see. So, really the government has no business stopping citizens from killing, raping, etc., each other.
He might be a libertatian, but he is sure no consevative.
The on goin effort on this forum to marganilize Christians and send them to the back of the bus continues.
Jhnn 19:4 Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him.
Then he washed his hands in a public manner to show there was no simple answer.
Nope, not bizarre. Just depends on your point of view, doesn't it? You say "justified euthanasia", we say "murder".
Maybe Mitt was going for the headline. "Government was wrong in the Schiavo case," you say? Which govt? The legislature that tried to intervene? The courts that sentenced an innocent woman to death and upheld the sentence? The police who surrounded her and kept her family from her deathbed, lest they give her a drop of water, lest she give them some sign of recognition? The state governor who sympathized and ultimately hadn't the guts to protect her, and who washed his hands like Pilate?
Which government was wrong and which was right? Ah, the courts were right.
Let's fix that headline for him: "Romney says outcome was right in the Schiavo case."
This closes the Romney case for me.
Romney lost a lot of votes with his casual candor on this issue, including mine.
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.