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killing Terri because she had an inherent right to life and there was no clear evidence that she wanted food and water withdrawn.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 ...
Well, those founding fathers must have been some of the most ignorant for even thinking that they were to found a government designed to protect those unalienable rights that their Creator God granted... LOL!
I’ll take that kind of ignorance any day of the week...
Doctors investigated and her brain was indeed nowhere near a normal brain.
She was basically brain dead for real.
She could make some noises now and then, but that was it.
They did the autopsy on her, so we know the brain was not in any kind of operable state.
Exactly, LOL! Some have a clever post now and then, but you’re special. In posts 201 and 202, you had me really believing that you were gonna hurl.
And that way lies the road to tyranny. No doubt about it. You are another Democrat that hasn't even figured it out yet.
In legal terms, a criminal offense is a particular class of illegality — one that often entails imprisonment. Something can be illegal and still not be considered a “criminal” offense. For example, drunk driving is in some cases (or was — I’m not sure of current law) considered a moving violation, not a crime. So it was illegal, and you could be punished, but it did not give you a criminal record.
It’s pretty clear that that definition is what Thompson was talking about, as he specifically said he was pro-life, but talked about not supporting criminalization in the context of jailing people.
Even the GOP platform says that its pro-life agenda “does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion.”
http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/2004_GOP_Platform_Abortion.htm
Of course, it’s a separate question whether or not you agree that women/parents/family doctors should or should not be jailed as punishment for breaking abortion law.
But it’s incorrect to equate opposition to criminalization with support for legalization.
Your mind set is identical to Democrats and socialists. It confuses goals and intentions with means and methods. Of course, no one is arguing that our government wasn’t founded to protect God-given liberty. That’s just your absurd straw man.
But you end your journey exactly where the Founders started theirs. That makes you and absurd and irrelavant figure. Your passion is real and I suggest you harness it to really dig in to how the Founders put their notions of protecting liberty into practical form when they crafted our form of government. Then you might not be so ready to play fast and loose with it. That what I mean by your ignorance being dangerous.
You really do need to crack a book, and I don’t mean the Bible.
Then start acting like one.
I thought I was.... :-)
It’s subsided now...
I don't want to be rude, but did it ever occur to you that you are being manipulated by those who want you to keep supporting the people you're compromising on? They use fear tactics or lies (on both liberals and conservatives) to get your support, and to get you to keep pushing the line lower and lower. And obviously that has been successful. And the ironic thing is, national security does become THE issue, but for different reasons. And it's more than that. The future of our country is at stake, because of these phonies that you feel you must pull the lever for - they are the ones taking us towards unconstitutional, unAmerican globalist policies and deals that have sold us out and are slowly leading to an eventual global government. That's the real risk, for all of us. Which takes us right back to the original point of not letting yourself compromise more and more every time, because that's exactly what is leading to a threat to our national security and this country as we know it.
and that means not to act like Stephen Douglas
"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States..." - The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
The truth of the matter is that the Founding Fathers did not consider the federal government to be a "national" government because the United States is not a "nation" in the strict sense, but rather, a federation of independent nation-states. The ratification of the Constitution didn't change that either. In fact, The United States is still a confederation.
"The definition of a Confederate Republic seems simply to be, an "assemblage of societies" or an association of two or more States into one State. The extent, modifications and objects of the Foederal authority are mere matters of discretion. So long as the separate organisation of the members be not abolished, so long as it exists by a constitutional necessity for local purposes, though it should be in perfect subordination to the general authority of the Union, it would still be, in fact and in theory, an association of States, or a confederacy." - Federalist, no. 9
Fred’s still my #1 pick.
Where did all the outrage and support from our “lamakers”go after the media blitz faded on this?
Fred’s Pro-Life voting record is proof to show where he stands on these matters.
I do think that Terri’s parents should have had a legal right to care for Terri.
Well, the Bible is in a class by itself. It doesn’t even qualify as a book, as that’s too low a standard. It doesn’t deserve to even have the name — “book”. But, be that as it may, just because I don’t take “your line” doesn’t mean I’ve never read up on these matters (or haven’t read “enough”). That’s a common fallacy (I would say) of those who think they are smarter than the average... :-)
“If you don’t think the way I do, you obviously need more ‘educating.’ “ LOL!
It must be so disconcerting to you that there are so many millions of people out there, who can vote (or rather “outvote” you) who aren’t as “read-up” as you, so that all your own reading may come to “nought”... What a disillusioning moment...
I haven’t followed this particular part of the thread line by line...but it seems as if the discussion is shooting off in two different directions.
I agree with you that our natural rights are inalienable and come from God (as I would guess most or all of the folks on this thread would agree). In fact, Thompson has been saying this on the campaign trail: “My friends, we must remember that our rights come from God and not from government.” (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1922037/posts)
The sticky part is how to translate that into a government of laws (rather than a government of men). We don’t have a monarch who simply and arbitrarily decides when inalienable rights are being trampled. We have a system of checks and balances designed to protect our God-given rights from being trampled by others, and from being trampled by government itself.
As with Terri’s case, when one party says an inalienable right is being abrogated, and another party disagrees, how does our government decide who’s right? In my view the government has to follow the Constitution and law as it’s written, rather than making it up as they go along. I understand the perspective that in an emergency to save someone’s life, you do whatever is necessary. I also understand the perspective that our federal representatives should not be permitted to throw out the processes, checks and balances designed by our Founders and simply because they have an opinion on the case that differs from the elected state officials who legally were given the power to make the decision.
My take and my wish as well.
My take and my wish as well.
Well, the problem is when some people say that the law says “thus-and-such”, which results in taking away life (not talking about criminal convictions for murdering someone, now...), instead of protecting life at all costs — then something is very seriously wrong with the law, or how people have made the law, or people’s interpretation of the law.
From that beginning and founding document, of the Declaration of Independence, which provides justifications and a rationale for the newly formed country, we see of the unalienable rights, that “life” is paramount, above all others. That’s simply the case because without life, you can enjoy no other rights. That’s why it’s listed first and why it’s paramount, above the others. And that’s why the government must do everything in its power to protect life at *all costs*.
So, when you have government working “unconstitutionally” — then something is definitely very seriously wrong. And how do you know that the government is acting unconstitutionally? Well, very simply — if a life is taken by the government, it’s acting unconstitutionally (again, not talking about criminals paying for the death of someone else that they murdered). So, wherever the government either allows or takes a life (by law or court order or whatever [again, outside of murder convictions or self-defense matters]), then it’s unconstitutional.
So, in reference to Terri, did the government or the courts or some governmental agency act in such a way as to deprive her of her life, whereas other parties wanted to protect her continuing life — yes, that was the case, of the government not protecting her continuing life but taking it away. That was unconstitutional (no matter what convoluted, aberrant, evil or twisted minds can come up with to justify it).
It’s clear that there’s a lot of aberrant and unconstitutional thinking going on here on Free Republic, resulting in something that would have never happened, in a million years, if you had submitted this case (of Terri’s) to the founding fathers for their judgement, right after they ratified the Constitution. They would have never done that in a million years. She would have been given to her parents to take care of her.
Regards,
Star Traveler
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.