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killing Terri because she had an inherent right to life and there was no clear evidence that she wanted food and water withdrawn.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 ...
The 14th amendment forbids any state from enforcing any law which abridges the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. But then “state’s rights” confrederates aren’t big fans of the 14th amendment are they!?
There’s no doubt in my mind a lot of bad stuff went on...and if it’s true Michael will be dealt with by God anyway.
However...while some here want to believe Terri was actually somewhat coherent and knew what was going on, there’s just as much evidence that she was completely vegetative.
That’s the whole reason this is such a hard issue. I don’t think Fred or any other person deserves derision for their opinions on this issue.
So true!
“The excruciating, two-week murder of Terri Schiavo should have been stopped by Governor Jeb Bush.”
Either the Governor or the President had the power to pardon someone sentence to death by the courts. That power exists to give the executive branch the moral authority to intervene in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
That is exactly what Terri Sciavo’s case was.
You were saying — “I don’t disagree at all. Perhaps the state of Florida had an interest, but not the Feds, at least according to my copy of the Constitution.”
Well, with the Declaration of Independence stating that we have inalienable rights granted from God, our Creator —
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ... “
... and the Constitution is for protecting those rights, among other things — I would say protecting life is certainly a fundamental goal of the highest order for the Federal Government, given that it’s in the first few sentences of the founding of our country and government!
The government needs to intervene, in all cases, to preserve life, given that this is a right granted from our Creator God.
Regards,
Star Traveler
Sorry, but it’s against my religion to vote for pro-choice candidates. What goes for Rudy goes for Fred!
Bad photoshop. But nice try.
Bet you enjoyed sticking that pin in that bubble. :)
Thompson is right.
You are right. Jeb Bush should have stepped in and investigated the criminal actions of the judge in the case.
Everybody involved won, except Terri and her family.
ditto and bttt
And how do candidate's act? In the past they never came to the nominating convention or traveled to give speeches. They would give speeches from their own front porches, which is why it used to be called 'standing for election.'
You may want to read up on the predictive value of the online political futures market. Here’s an article from The Street that explains why these markets are so unreliable (in a nutshell, their tiny population, the tiny sums that are wagered, and their susceptibility to manipulation make them not very good as a predictive tool):
Those Spurious Presidential Futures:
http://www.thestreet.com/p/_rms/rmoney/barryritholtz/10185976.html
Here’s some more info:
The night before the Iowa Caucuses in 2004, investors thought Howard Dean had 45% chance of winning Iowa, Gephart had 25% chance, Kerry had 20% chance and Edwards had 8% chance.
At the same time Jan 18, 2004, Iowa Electronic Markets investors thought Dean had a 51% chance of winning the overall donk nomination, Wesley Clark had 21% chance, and Kerry had 13% chance.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9502E2D81639F93BA25752C0A9629C8B63
The very next day, John Kerry won the Iowa caucuses with 37.6% of the vote, Edwards was second with 31.8%, Dean was a distant third with 18%, and Gephardt was fourth with 10.6%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Iowa_Democratic_caucuses
Get over it. She was a veg.
Exactly!
The rest is just detail.
How can any true conservative dispute this simple but clear tenet?
Your list of candidates is two then, a pro-life socialist (Huckabee) and Duncan Hunter. I'm curious who your dog is in this hunt that passes your pro-life test.
Thank you...we were wondering where you were!
Well, for one, a family has no right to murder someone. And then secondly, as far as Thompson is concerned, it does have to do with him being a candidate, in that I won’t be voting for him on that basis. So, it does figure into the “candidate equation”...
Regards,
Star Traveler
Well you go right ahead and support whoever you want to.
Who is that, BTW?
There is nothing in the Constitution which requires states to make murder a crime. If the state wanted to it could legalize murder, so long as everyone had the same right to murder. Of course it is extremely unlikely to happen, and it would be unjust, as was Florida’s treatment of Terri Schiavo.
Well said.
Uh, let’s see here...
1. FRed was an unmarried very young expectant father, who did not cause his child to be aborted, as many did in that same situation.
2. His voting record is 100% Pro Life.
3. He has said, many, many times, “I have always—and that’s been my position the entire time I’ve been in politics. I thought Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided”
4. He said again on MTP...”I think Roe v. Wade hopefully one day will be overturned...to have a constitutional amendment to do that, I do not think would be the way to go.”
5. And again, “my legal record is there, and that’s the way I would govern if I was president. I would take those same positions. No federal funding for abortion,”
6. “I think life begins at conception. I always—it was abstract to me before. I was a father earlier when I was very young. I was busy. I went about my way.”
So, now, why don’t YOU show where FRed said he was for abortion?
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.