Posted on 11/07/2007 7:41:35 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
On the matter of Terri Schiavo’s right to life, which occupied the attention of the media and Congress in 2005, Thompson called that a family decision, “in consultation with their doctor,” and “the federal government should not be involved.” Thompson added, “the less government the better.” ...
In the case of Terri Schiavo, a severely disabled person, there was a family dispute. Her estranged husband wanted her to die and he eventually succeeded in starving her to death. Her parents had wanted her to live. ...
There was no moral justification for killing Terri because she had an inherent right to life and there was no clear evidence that she wanted food and water withdrawn. The morally correct course of action would have been to let her family take care of her. Nobody would have been harmed by that.
“Meet the Press” host Tim Russert brought up the death of Thompson’s daughter, who reportedly suffered a brain injury and a heart attack after an accidental overdose of prescription drugs. Apparently Thompson and members of his family made some decisions affecting her life and death. Thompson described it as an “end-of-life” issue.
Bobby Schindler says he doesn’t know what the circumstances precisely were in that case and that he sympathizes with what Thompson went through. However, he says that it is not comparable at all to his sister’s case.
“What no one is recognizing,” he told me, “is that my sister’s case was not an end-of-life issue. She was simply and merely disabled. Terri wasn’t dying. She was only being sustained by food and water. She had no terminal illness. She wasn’t on any machines. All she needed was a wheelchair and she could have been taken anywhere. She didn’t even need to be confined to a bed.”
(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...
I understand that it is very specifically the absolute and official beginning of the founding of our country, and forms the very justification by which these founding fathers are going to fight to form their own new government — and they state as one of those justifications, that they say that the new government has no power over — that our Creator God has granted us certain unalienable rights and that no government has the ability to grant these or take them away, and that they are going to form this new government to protect those very things which are those unalienable rights.
That much I do understand...
I’m sorry you don’t and I sure don’t want to ever associate with anyone who doesn’t know or understand this about the Declaration of Independence (and who is an American).
So, please, do me a favor and never bother me again with such garbage as your soliciting here. I don’t wish to ever know a person such as yourself. Your type of character is enough to make a person vomit...
Regards,
Star Traveler
Your doubt is my extreme disgust... That’s all I can say about it. Don’t ever bother me with such garbage again. It’s enough to make a person puke seven ways to Sunday....
Regards,
Star Traveler
Fred in ‘08.
Sadly, Star, you are one of these very people. With your preference for the subjugation of the states to supreme central authority, you are a Democrat and don't even know it.
Insurance money...
Conferring with the dead is another good reason to disassociate from such a person as yourself...
You’re very passionate about things you don’t properly understand.
That is absolutely untrue. But I'm not going to get into this debate again. It made me sick when it happened, and the wound is still too fresh in my mind.
Well, if the Republican Party can’t produce anyone else other than the devil, I’m sure not going to vote for the devil... that’s for sure... And I’m sure the other side won’t produce anything better, either...
At least I know enough to understand what unalienable rights granted by our Creator God means...
Good luck with that “Heaven on earth” stuff
You would be saying that to the founding fathers, if you were present during their deliberations... LOL!
I was leaning towards Rudy, but Fred just won some points. And a few more for not pandering.
Thanks for the reminder on this one.
As I said, I do understand very well what the founding fathers said in regards to unalienable rights being granted by our Creator God and that the government they were forming was going to be designed to protect those rights. When someone tells me that this isn’t the case, then I know they are the supreme liars...
Regards,
Star Traveler
That’s coming soon enough, too...
Not on earth
National security is THE issue to me in this election with the state of the economy not far behind. Without national security, we’ll all be aborted and the ease of buying a gun won’t really matter a whole lot. At that point who marries whom isn’t of paramount importance to me.
And all of the GOP candidates will be far stronger in the defense of this nation than will the Democrats. Far from being a “lesser of two evils” proposition as you set up, it is a good vs. evil proposition, good being those who will protect this nation’s security, work to win the war in Iraq and the overall war on terror and maintain a wise homeland security policy here domestically as versus Democrats who simply just don’t take it seriously and see talk of national security as being hopelessly simple-minded and the stuff of red necks and talk radio, the subject being an annoying distraction from the all-important agenda of providing as many government goodies as possible to get as many Americans as dependent on government, and thus the Democratic party, as possible. $5000 scholarships for babies and unneeded expansions of S Chips are the priority. The defense of the nation will just take care of itself if we surrender to the UN and Europe’s will and cease taking a pro-active security stance. Then jihadist nihilists will decide we’re not such bad people and we’ll all join hands and sing Kumbaya.
Do you see now why I don’t see it as accepting the lesser of two evils, which is always the same tired mantra put up by the absolutists, but rather resisting what I see as being evil, i.e. Democrats who would leave you, me and those we love vulnerable to foreign assault, to get behind whoever the eventual GOP nominee is regardless of his less than perfect adherence to some supposed conservative credential or another. I see it as accepting that the only candidate who will ever see things exactly as I do is me, and I’m not running. That doesn’t make any of our candidates evil. Far from it, they’re all good men. I’d be proud to have any one of them, White Flag Ron, excepted, being our standard bearer especially compared to the corrupt, anti-American and dishonest trash running for the Democrats.
When viewed in that light, I think how you can see why I don’t think any of the issues you name matter a damn if we’re not first secure as a nation and those who would do us harm are left unmolested. And Republicans with the sole exception of Ron Paul will be about the business of securing this nation first and I believe will do so vigorously. When that’s accomplished, we can then have a debate about the other issues. Those are debates for tranquil times, not something to take our eye off the ball of what needs done right now to keep us all alive and well.
You’re completely nuts, LOL
Thats a Muslim thang, Dar Islam. Heaven on earth.
Earth is earthly matters and its a struggle
Good night
Well, from what our Creator God says, it is... I’ll take His word for it.
Oh..., and that’s the same Creator God who granted us those unalienable rights that the founding fathers were talking about...
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.