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killing Terri because she had an inherent right to life and there was no clear evidence that she wanted food and water withdrawn.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 ...
Crack a book.
Well, that’s enlightening, being declared nuts for actually believing the founding fathers in that our Creator God has granted us these certain unalienable rights and actually thinking that they were forming a government to protect those same unalienable rights... Yes, what a crazy idea all right... LOL!
Now you are merely incoherent.
Well, you obviously haven’t been reading what that Creator God that the founding fathers referred to, has been saying in the Bible, then — have you?
If you had, you would know that...
Regards,
Star Traveler
Oh no don’t be offended, I’m very impressed that you have all these other members actually trying to have dialogue with you, when you’re an obvious loon. Very entertaining.
I think you are confused.
There are earthly things and there are heavenly things.
You cannot expect mans gov to rise to the level of heaven.
Rest well. I need sleep
How about the good book, the one that the founding fathers used in their prayers and supplications to that Creator God that they referred to... That’s a good place to start, since the founding fathers specifically referred to that same Creator God as instrumental in helping them found such a country as we have now.
How about a history book, or a book on constitutional law? How about something, anything, that would teach you when and how the United States of America was founded?
You’re embarrassing yourself.
Then I’ve been incoherent from the beginning for even thinking that the founding fathers were correct in attributing those certain unalienable rights to our Creator God, which no government on earth could minimize, change or take away.
Come to think about it, they must have been incoherent, too — which was why they went to war in the first place... LOL!
He said he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade so the states can decide. I believe this is credible because his voting record on abortion was 100% consistent with this in the Senate.
Sincerely, TJ, do you understand the definition of “criminalize?” Many things are illegal and subject to huge penalties, but are not “criminal” (i.e., imprisonable) offenses.
I must be saying something very dangerous then, huh?
I’m not at all embarrassed, in the least, for knowing what the founding fathers said was true (even if many people today no longer believe them). I do believe exactly as they did, that our Creator God has endowed us with certain unalienable rights and that our government is formed to protect those rights (and not minimize, change or take away from them).
Sorry to disappoint you...
Following on with Petronski’s very appropriate suggestion that you crack a book, let me suggest that if you really want to understand something about our Constitution and our federal form of government (formed just as you suggest to protect our God-given liberties), and to understand something of the concerns and intentions of the Founders as they struggled to craft a form of government that might actually achieve that goal in the real world, start with The Federalist Papers, by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay.
Take a chance, educate yourself.
I’d say you are geniune.
A crime is something illegal. A criminal is one who breaks the law.
Only in the sense that ignorance is dangerous.
You said — “You cannot expect mans gov to rise to the level of heaven.”
I’m not confused on the matter, even if you think so. I understand the nature of mankind, in its sinful condition (which God’s word makes abundantly clear) and so did the founding fathers (from that same Word of God), which is why they designed certain things in our government the way they did.
Now, while mankind cannot bring its affairs up to the level of Heaven, we are told in the Bible that Heaven is going to bring its affairs down to the earth, where mankind lives. This is specifically called the “Kingdom of God” and it’s associated with the Millennial Reign of Christ *on this earth* (”as it is in Heaven”, as in the Lord’s prayer). So, we will see this coming soon.
And, as such, it will be earthly things with Heavenly things, one and the same — at that time. And I’m not talking about “in the by and by” — but rather — in the near term, because that’s not too far away, right now.
Regards,
Star Traveler
tailgunner I think you are absolutely right. Federalism is an ideal but it is not a religion. Terri or anyone else should not be sacrificed to death to appease the federalist gods. We have a moral obligation to do whatever it takes to save lives even if that involves the federal govt taking over.
That reminds me of something I heard about someone seeing a friend’s new baby and they thought to themselves, “My, my..., that’s the ugliest baby I’ve ever seen in my life”, but of course they were not going to say that. So, about all they could say was, “Yep, that’s a baby all right!” LOL!
So, yep... “genuine” huh?
LOL!
C’mon you’re selling him short, check out post 156.
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.