Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Barack Obama Would Take Back Vote Helping Terri Schiavo
LifeNews.com ^ | February 26, 2008 | Steven Ertelt

Posted on 02/26/2008 8:21:18 PM PST by SErtelt

by Steven Ertelt LifeNews.com Editor February 26, 2008

Cleveland, OH (LifeNews.com) -- Senator Barack Obama debated his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton on Tuesday night and said his biggest mistake was voting to help save Terri Schiavo. Terri is the disabled Florida woman whose husband won the legal right to starve her to death.

(Excerpt) Read more at lifenews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: assistedsuicide; barackobama; euthanasia; moralabsolutes; obama; prolife; schiavo; terrischiavo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 181-188 next last
To: fetal heart beats by 21st day; SErtelt
Pinged from Terri Dailies

8mm


81 posted on 02/28/2008 6:04:04 AM PST by 8mmMauser (Jezu ufam tobie...Jesus I trust in Thee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Swordfished; fetal heart beats by 21st day
>>I believe there's a thread with over 2,000 replies where this issue has been argued ad nauseum.

I resemble that remark. Actually, we have had zillions of posts and Terri Dailies ever since this pro-life topic came to national prominence. You should check them out if you can control your nausea. Of course, we Terri's Listers are all core conservatives. How about you?

Is that the way you think, as you expressed here about your B.O.? If so, you must be getting lonesome because most of the rest have wandered into the bug zapper threads.

82 posted on 02/28/2008 6:16:17 AM PST by 8mmMauser (Jezu ufam tobie...Jesus I trust in Thee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: dbehsman
U.S. Constitution - Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights:
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
...
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

83 posted on 02/28/2008 6:16:44 AM PST by Swordfished
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: 8mmMauser
Of course, we Terri's Listers are all core conservatives. How about you?

I'm a libertarian-leaning conservative...social conservatives don't get along so well with us. And they're more broken-up about it than we are.

Is that the way you think, as you expressed here about your B.O.?

I was impressed by one thing Obama said...that doesn't make me an Obama supporter.

84 posted on 02/28/2008 6:24:14 AM PST by Swordfished
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Swordfished; fetal heart beats by 21st day; wagglebee
>>I was impressed by one thing Obama said...that doesn't make me an Obama supporter.

I can understand that. I was an athletic supporter but that didn't make me a jock.

Nice to hear you are a part-time conservative in some ways, but this is a pro-life site, you know, and when you make comments like these, you brand yourself. People may get the idea you are anti-life if you think it was ok for the State to enforce a death sentence against an innocent like Terri.

I am not a hyphenated-conservative, just a plain old conservative.

Just sayen...

85 posted on 02/28/2008 6:39:18 AM PST by 8mmMauser (Jezu ufam tobie...Jesus I trust in Thee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Swordfished; 8mmMauser; dbehsman; wagglebee; EternalVigilance; Pinkbell; SErtelt

Oh, my goodness! You are supporting our assertion that Terri’s murder was unconstitutional.

You are not supporting your support for Barack Obama’s lie that the govt’s attempt to protect the life of an innocent American citizen was a violation of the US Constitution.

You’re not exhibiting strong moral character or strong reading comprehension skills.

You certainly have no understanding of Consitutional Law, either.

No wonder you have fallen under Obama’s hypnosis.


86 posted on 02/28/2008 6:43:17 AM PST by fetal heart beats by 21st day (Defending human life is not a federalist issue. It is the business of all of humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: fetal heart beats by 21st day
The Obama Nation is more than political, it is evolving into a cult. But there is a way to stop it and wash it down the drain.

Lifebuoy stops B.O.


87 posted on 02/28/2008 6:53:05 AM PST by 8mmMauser (Jezu ufam tobie...Jesus I trust in Thee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Swordfished; 8mmMauser; fetal heart beats by 21st day
I'm a libertarian-leaning conservative...social conservatives don't get along so well with us.

That's because most libertarians aren't conservatives. They are liberals who don't like paying taxes and own guns, those are the only real things they seem to have in common with conservatives.

Libertarians often misunderstand "limited government" and think that it means "no government" and this simply is not the case. The Constitution makes it very clear that its purpose is to, "Secure the Blessings of Liberty" and the most important of these blessing is life, our Founding Fathers were very clear on this.

Amendment V of the Constitution is often thought to only refer to criminal cases, but when you read it, it uses the phrase "no PERSON" and says, "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." When the Supreme Court ruled in "Kelo v. City of New London" in 2005, libertarians were up in arms (as were conservatives and rightly so) over this clear violation of the Fifth Amendment, because it clearly violated individual property rights. Yet many of these same libertarians DENIED that Terri's right to life was protected by this same amendment.

From what I've seen, most libertarians could be better described as anarchists than anything else.

88 posted on 02/28/2008 6:59:30 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Correct me if I'm wrong but Terri didn't desire to exercise her 'right to life'. Her husband says she told him she wouldn't want to live in such a state. Whether or not you believe the husband, he is the closest family member.

---

Libertarians often misunderstand "limited government" and think that it means "no government" and this simply is not the case.

If that misunderstand, then they aren't libertarians:

libertarian:
1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state. 2. One who believes in free will."

I see nothing in the definition of libertarianism about anarchy.

89 posted on 02/28/2008 10:41:29 AM PST by Swordfished
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: 8mmMauser
Nice to hear you are a part-time conservative in some ways, but this is a pro-life site, you know, and when you make comments like these, you brand yourself. People may get the idea you are anti-life if you think it was ok for the State to enforce a death sentence against an innocent like Terri.

I don't have strong feelings either way about the Schiavo case (except against the zealots on either side) and I am in no way 'anti-life' or a 'deathbot' - the kind of people using this language I try not to bother even having a conversation with. Society can take away your life (capital punishment) when you've harmed society...but it doesn't work the other way: Society can't force you to keep living just because you've been a blessing to society.

Life is precious, but it's not so black and white. Is life spent in excruciating pain precious? Is it precious to the person experiencing the pain? Obviously not.

The judicial process worked itself out - even all the way up to the Florida and U.S. Supreme Court. 'Justice' was served (due process), no matter what one's personal opinion. I think OJ got away with murder, but justice was served. If people don't like the laws, they need to work to get them changed instead of actively working to subvert existing laws.

90 posted on 02/28/2008 10:57:01 AM PST by Swordfished
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: fetal heart beats by 21st day

There was due process, was there not? Congress even got involved, so did the U.S. & Florida Supreme Court. Yet you continue to call it ‘murder’. You are factually wrong.


91 posted on 02/28/2008 11:01:14 AM PST by Swordfished
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Swordfished
There was due process

I guess I missed the capital trial before a jury of her peers.

92 posted on 02/28/2008 11:04:18 AM PST by EternalVigilance (With "Republicans" like these, who needs Democrats??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Swordfished

Florida Constitution

Article One

SECTION 2. Basic rights.—All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life...No person shall be deprived of any right because of...physical disability.


93 posted on 02/28/2008 11:07:59 AM PST by EternalVigilance (With "Republicans" like these, who needs Democrats??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Swordfished
Society can take away your life (capital punishment) when you've harmed society...but it doesn't work the other way: Society can't force you to keep living just because you've been a blessing to society.

I think you should do a bit of deep study on the meaning of the word "unalienable."

94 posted on 02/28/2008 11:09:36 AM PST by EternalVigilance (With "Republicans" like these, who needs Democrats??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Swordfished; 8mmMauser; floriduh voter; BykrBayb
Correct me if I'm wrong but Terri didn't desire to exercise her 'right to life'. Her husband says she told him she wouldn't want to live in such a state. Whether or not you believe the husband, he is the closest family member.

You are wrong.

1. Michael Schiavo NEVER made any such claim until AFTER the malpractice suits settled and Terri was awarded money for her rehabilitation (which Michael instead spent on legal fees to end her life).

2. Even IF Terri had ever made such a statement, at the time of her injury a feeding tube WAS NOT considered "extraordinary" life support under Florida law and therefore could not be removed.

3. As far as Michael being the "closest family member," Terri had conversations in the days before her accident in which she indicated that Michael was abusive and she was thinking about leaving him. Moreover, when someone abandons their spouse, moves in with a person of the opposite sex and has children with them, a normal assumption is that, regardless of legalities, the marriage is essentially over.

95 posted on 02/28/2008 11:17:37 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Pathological monsters with special interests in a particular outcome beneficial to them ARE NOT CREDIBLE. Some such monsters violate guardianship laws but tyrannical judges don't dismiss them and they win guardianship of the year award for killing a human being.

www.judgegeorgegreer.com, www.michaelschiavo.org

96 posted on 02/28/2008 11:37:04 AM PST by floriduh voter (FL Gov. Crist "This is America. I can wear whatever I want. I believe in freedom." You go, girl.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Swordfished
Congratulations. After a couple of posts, you still have failed to back up your original assertion. Since reading comprehension seems to escape you, let me ask again. Do you care to point out precisely where in the Constitution it says that a husband has the right to starve his wife to death? Can you please tell us where in the Constitution it says that in controversies involving life and death decisions, we should error to the side of death? Can you please tell us where in the Constitution it says what the IQ level of a person is before they loose their human rights?

You pointed out a couple of lines in the Constitution about due process and appropriate legislation.

That does not answer my questions, it only raises new ones. Didn’t Terri have a right to a trial by a jury of her peers? Didn’t Terri have protection against cruel and unusual punishment? What crime did Terri commit that warranted the death penalty?

97 posted on 02/28/2008 11:37:55 AM PST by dbehsman (NRA Life Member and loving every minute of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: floriduh voter; 8mmMauser

If Michael had simply sad to the Schindlers that it was too much for him to handle and he wanted a divorce, they would have gone along with it and that would have been the end of it. Instead, he plotted to murder Terri in the cruelest fashion imaginable.


98 posted on 02/28/2008 11:41:44 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Swordfished; dbehsman
You are on the right track with the Fifth Amendment, but you miss this essential passage:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,

This means that before Terri could be deprived of her life, there first needed to be a grand jury indictment. Obviously, since Terri committed no crime, there was no indictment.

99 posted on 02/28/2008 11:45:22 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Michael Schiavo was offered a million dollars to hand Terri over to her parents and siblings. The question becomes IMO, who outbid that offer? Terri is deceased and the devil is in the details.


100 posted on 02/28/2008 11:56:14 AM PST by floriduh voter (FL Gov. Crist "This is America. I can wear whatever I want. I believe in freedom." You go, girl.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 181-188 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson