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.
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