8mm
Posted on 05/28/2007 9:33:12 AM PDT by wagglebee
The Christian attorney who fought to keep Terry Schiavo alive says the three leading GOP presidential candidates don't understand the important disability issues involved in the widely publicized 2005 case.
During a recent Republican presidential debate in California, the candidates were asked whether Congress was right to intervene in the Terry Schiavo case by attempting to prevent the state of Florida from removing the disabled woman's feeding tube. The answers varied.
Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, said he thought it "was a mistake" for Congress to get involved and the matter should have been left at the state level. Senator John McCain said Congress "probably acted too hastily." And former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani called the case a "family dispute."
David Gibbs III of the Christian Law Association says the United States gives greater due process to convicted murderers than to innocent disabled people. The former attorney for Schiavo's parents argues that Congress did the right thing when it intervened to provide her those rights.
"Many of the candidates are following the political wind, if you will, instead of showing leadership and saying, 'You know what? That was good public policy back then. We need to stand up for the disabled. We need to stand up for the senior citizens,'" Gibbs says. "We need to have that compassion for vulnerable people as opposed to taking the mindset that those people that just don't matter," he notes.
It is disingenuous, the Christian attorney contends, for candidates to claim they are pro-life but not be willing to grant due process rights to the disabled. "If you're pro-life, you have to be pro-life at every step," he says.
"Please understand: our founding fathers understood that you don't have any liberty, our Constitution doesn't matter, if you don't protect the innocent life of the citizens," Gibbs explains. "That's why they talked about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- your free speech, your freedom of religion, your right to own a gun or [receive] due process of law," he says. "If the government can kill you, you have no true liberty."
When Rudy Giuliani visited Florida he initially said he was in favor of assisting Terry Schiavo but later backpedaled from those comments, Gibbs points out. And in the recent GOP presidential debate, he says, only Kansas Senator Sam Brownback and Congressman Duncan Hunter of California got the issue right when they were asked about the Schiavo case.
“Which time?”
When he said that this was a family matter.
I was under the impression it had never been documented in the medical record, which means it is disputed, especially when it first surfaces years later. Which is probably also the reason Carla Iyer’s claims were dismissed as “incredible.”
Am I mistaken in this? Do you have a link to the relevant record?
You got a little excited there and didn’t grasp my point. I was giving a simple analogy, not an accusation. I will reframe it. As Ronald Reagan thought, we could have different opinions within the framework of the Republican Party, but not embrace views clearly outside the framework. Pro-death is one of those values outside the fold. And yes, I know how Ronald Reagan thought on those matters.
Likewise in our church, we learn about the Faith from Our Lord’s perspective and do not bring in the devil to have equal time to offer evil as a part of the package. Simple, no? Accusing, Noooo. In case you imagine me as some fanatical maniac religious nut, I am a simple conservative Catholic. Hence my tag line.
Since you consider yourself Christian, then perhaps you just are not completely informed on what happened to Terri from back fifteen years or more, to see how Christians who know and were involved see it. Your perspective wouldn’t have survived three minutes at the vigil at Pinellas Park.
Please repeat louder, “Get thee behind me, Satan” or “Vade Satana, vade retro Satana,” as I actually whispered to the anti-Terri trolls at Pinellas Park.
Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
The only reason the Federal Government should be involved is the equal protection clause of the Constitution. If a disabled person is denied the same protection a less disabled person is granted, then it becomes a Federal issue.
Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
I appreciate your zeal in this matter. But remember the parable of the weeds.
Mt:13:
24 ¶ Another parable he proposed to them, saying: The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man that sowed good seed in his field.
25 But while men were asleep, his enemy came and oversowed cockle among the wheat and went his way.
26 And when the blade was sprung up, and had brought forth fruit, then appeared also the cockle.
27 And the servants of the good man of the house coming said to him. Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? Whence then hath it cockle?
28 And he said to them: An enemy hath done this. And the servants said to him: Wilt thou that we go and gather it up?
29 And he said: No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it.
30 Suffer both to grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn.
We do not want to include the cockle with the wheat when we harvest. We don't want to nurture the cockle either, for cockle is antithesis to the wheat. For a long time the cockle has been sitting there and growing right beside the wheat. Right now we are preparing to gather wheat for the harvest which is the election, so now we bundle up the cockle and burn it. The time is right Sounds good to me. You make my point. Thank you.
Hope certainly colored perception on this CT scan. (This is the one that was all over the Internet.) Have you seen some other scan?
Left: Scan of normal 25-year-old's brain; Right: Schiavo's 2002 CT scan at age 38 showing the massive loss of brain tissue.
31 And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty.
32 And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left.
34 Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
35 For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:
36 Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me.
37 Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee?
39 Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee?
40 And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.
41 Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.
42 For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink.
43 I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me.
44 Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee?
45 Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.
46 And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.
(Emphasis added)
I do wonder how you get around the fact that no food/liquid passed her lips. Even Karen Quinlan was weaned off her respirator, which in her case kept her alive, and allowed to live or die based on if her body could keep breathing on it’s own. I don’t think she was denied food/hydration tho.
‘IF’ Terri really was not conscious then offering her food and drink through her mouth should not have been that awful since she would not ingest enough to keep herself alive indefinitely. Why was she not given that chance?
Dr.s are quite willing to counsel pregnant women carrying a baby with down syndrome or some other problem to kill the child just because it’s going to have mental retardation or some other challenging disorder. So you think we should believe them when they say someone who does have brain damage isn’t aware? Hmm well I tend to be very skeptical.
She wasn't. The suggestion was made but her father angrily refused to take away her feeding tube, saying that that was her nutrition. Karen Ann died of pneumonia almost ten years after she was weaned off of the respirator.
Nobody is suspended for "differing views" on any issue. All you have to do to stay here is behave yourself.
What gets people banned is breaking Free Republic's rules against profanity and personal attacks, or for other kinds of flagrant bad behavior. They have only themselves to blame.
Food is artificial?
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.