Posted on 04/11/2007 5:56:46 AM PDT by pissant
What part of “I think the right decision would have been to keep the feeding tube in, under the circumstances of the case,” don’t you understand??
The fact that Mr. Giuliani goes on at length to make the point that we should keep people on life support who have asked to be kept on life support makes it seem he doesn't even remember what the case was about. If Schiavo's wishes had been known, there wouldn't have been a controversy in the first place.
ping - more on this story
What part of this do you choose to not understand?
The fact that Mr. Giuliani goes on at length to make the point that we should keep people on life support who have asked to be kept on life support makes it seem he doesn't even remember what the case was about.
Rudy has been stumbling badly the last two weeks. He's showing that he's not ready for prime time.
In Giuliani’s defense, most Americans are incoherent on the issue. Not that I am a Giuliani fan - I am not.
“once the courts in Florida...”
We’ve already seen what a mess liberalized courts have made of the “sanctity of life” issue. The courts are not the final arbiters of the value of life or freedom. Once people are willing to concede that they are it’s game over.
Not only is Rudy still ahead in the polls, his standing in early primary and caucus state surveys rose within the past three weeks.
He's said he will appoint strict Constitutional justices.
That canard is dead as a doornail after last week.
Rudy lost 13 points after Fred's entry into the race became a possibility.
And he has made gaffe after gaffe the last two weeks.
He's peaked and will go down a long, slow slope.
And then turned around and expanded the definition to allow a 'strict constructionist' to uphold Roe v. Wade.
That spin got done in by Rudy last week. Why are you still attempting to use it?
That was the essence of the case. Her husband claimed she had expressly wished NOT to be kept alive if incapacitated. Others denied she had expressed that wish.
In fact, all aspects that revolve around end-of-life issues were brought up by that case.
It's really silly nitpicking to try to nail Rudy on this one.
The point is, there was no clear indication of Terri's wishes.
And the husband had a clear motive for wanting her feeding tube pulled.
Rudy completely missed the core issues with his comments.
Big deal. He was still first in the poll. If Fred Thompson runs most likely it will be a Rudy/Thompson ticket. Deal with it.
Ask any other candidate the same question and you’ll get a straight answer.
I really don’t care which side he came down on. But the man doesn’t know his own mind.
***...Giuliani replied: “If it would deprive someone of a constitutional right, yes, if that’s the status of the law, then I would, yes.” Giuliani later stated that, as president, he would leave intact the 1976 Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal abortion funding, except in cases of rape, incest, and pregnancies that jeopardize the lives of mothers. “As I have indicated before,” Giuliani said, “I will not seek to change current law as described in the Hyde Amendment...”...*** Look at what happened in NYC
Only in your dreams.
Rudy is showing he's not ready for prime time. His support is a mile wide and an inch deep. His only hope is a divided right wing of the party - and Fred's entry would eliminate that hope.
Wrong thread? This is about Terri, not abortion.
Duh. So it would follow that the case was about the fact that there was no clear unequivocal proof of her intention, hence Rudy's opinion that unless there are clear intentions, best err on the side of keeping in the feeding tube.
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.