Posted on 03/22/2005 6:13:43 AM PST by sonsofliberty2000
per Fox
The Hemlock Society has changed its name: it's now "End of Life Choices." The sheeple can be more easily fooled that way.
Probably in Judge Greers court......LOL.....big chance of them winning!
Greer told congress to stuff it....and they complied.
I think what makes this issue so volatile is the fact that this is the perfect example of faith clashing with state.
On the one hand, we have the fact that Michael is the LEGAL guardian - he is, unfortunately, by virtue of a marriage that still exists.
On the other hand, we have a spiritual atrocity occuring, whereby a woman's life is being thrown out like so much trash.
The question then, is this: What weighs more than the other? Catholics are taught that if the rule of law is immoral, there is an obligation to disobey it when directly confronted with it. e.g. a Catholic nurse in Terri Schiavo's hospice would be under the pain of mortal sin if she assisted in removing the feeding tube - even if ordered by the courts. The nurse has no choice, spiritually, but to defy the order and not participate. Whether or not she wishes to engage in further civil disobedience and disrupt the removal by others, is up to her.
So here we have Michael Schiavo. He has the rule of law on his side that says, "go ahead and pull the tube". He does NOT have the rule of God (at least by Catholic theology) to follow through and do it. He is under the pain of mortal sin even though the state condones it.
Not all of us are Catholic, not all of us believe the same things. It doesn't matter. What matters is that Michael Schiavo is defying canon law by cooperating with a civil ruling that facilitates an evil. Catholics have a right to be outraged. Our consciences should always be guided by the laws of God. At the same time, it doesn't give us the right to declare that Schiavo has given up his rights, when he hasn't. That is a fact. Our theological argument against euthanasia is rock solid. The civil law runs rampant over the laws of God in many ways, every day. We cannot convince the court - as it is at this moment - to act any way other than it has been programmed to act by foolish and disastrous past rulings and the subversion of judicial nominees by the Democratic wing of Congress.
In other words, we can be mad as hell - and we should be - but it's OUT OF OUR HANDS. It's in God's hands now. We have to give it to God. Whatever the outcome, if Terri is allowed to die, she will go to paradise. You, me and everyone else, however, have our marching orders to make certain this NEVER happens again. And that comes by taking the gift of faith and our respect for the laws of God, and doubling and tripling our efforts to get judges and legislators in place who will reflect what we believe this nation was founded on - the principals of Judeo-Christianity.
It still smacks of something Hitler would be proud of.
But that's my opinion and I'm going to use what I've been given by God to convince people that this should never happen again.
The HINO told congress to stuff it and he also told President Bush to stuff it! Come see my wife. Sure, starve her for a few more days and invite Cheney too.
"So we are STILL waiting for the court do do or say something?"
Yes. It takes courts some time to hear statements, read transcripts, and consider their decision. Yesterday's decision is 11 pages long.
Would you rather the court simply ruled on their emotions? Not me. If I have a case before any court, I want them to take their time and consider the facts carefully. Don't you?
A decision will be forthcoming. It may well not be the one you want to hear, but it will not have been made without deliberation.
You only have your own interpretation of the facts and seem to fail to understand that most people here do not agree with the finding of facts of the sadist judge Greer:simply because his interpretations of the facts are not reasonable.Just like the finding of facts ,leading to the jury decision in the OJ trial were not reasonable and are not recognized by most people in the US. OJ's guilt is so obvious that is called a murderer as the butt of jokes on a regular basis on national TV with impunity.
Schiavo murderous plan is similarly becoming evident on a reasonable interpretation of the facts.
Well, if they'd done nothing they would have been trashed, as they are being trashed for not being able to control all the evil in the world.
I don't know what will happen, but despair is not the answer. You pray and maintain Faith. If she dies, you work to change the Culture of Death that allowed this to happen. You make good come out of evil.
Based on your and the doctor's descriptions, all DRUNKS are PVS and should be put to death.
DOCTOR:" the patient's visual pursuit is inconsistent and irregular, therefore the patient has no cognitive functions."
NURSE: "But doctor, she just said 'I am hungry'"
DOCTOR: "Are you questioning my diagnosis? Shut up or you're fired."
Now there is a non sequitur.
-A8
Theresa is fading away from us...maybe only hours left ;(
PRAY HARDER !!!!!
JEB BUSH ARREST MS, HELP TERRI NOW!!!!
save her, please,please,please....
beg to differ, and if you can provide some substantiation for your assertion I would be glad to read it. The chief executive cannot simply order Terri removed from the hospice, for example.
Yes he can. If the President overstepped his authority it will be overturned. However, it will give Terri another chance.
This is patently false. Please get your facts straight.
It is absolutely true. I have been following this case for a long time.
No it takes no time to see that someone is being murdered. They should have ordered early this morning for this murder to be stopped.
So, if he puts the tube back in, he becomes her husband again? Gee, I didn't know marriage was so transient.
He may very WELL not be married in the eyes of God, but the Church doesn't declare that until a cooperative split takes place in the civil arena. You're entitled to your opinion, but not even the Church would say that they're not married at this point.
Has this information been given to the press at all. There seems to be a tipping point at this time with ,MSM starting to question the story of Michael.I noticed that Larry King was definitely cold last night with the husband.
You must be a lawyer. You say you have one question, then ask three or four. :-) Juries shudder when lawyers say, "now in closing..."
Seriously, so far as we know, Terri used the term 'will' in her discussions with Joan as a layman and without the legal distinctions of a 'will' and a 'living will'. Moreover, we don't know (from the trial court decision) when the conversation with Joan occurred relative to Terri's heart attack.
Thus, I don't know when and/or if Terri ever executed a 'will'. We know she did not execute a durable power or 'living will'.
Again, we don't have the transcript of Joan's testimony, only the judge's paraphrase of it (with the transcript in front of him). The statement is made after a TV movie as a statement of general resolve, not necessarily a statement that she intended to call a lawyer to draft a will. Remember, the probative value of a statement like this is that it reflects her state of mind.
If there was a passage of time from the statement to the incapacitation of Terri could this mean that she changed her mind?
Certainly, the passage of time means she had the opportunity to change her mind, but there is no reason to believe she did. That is the problem. You have a clear and dispassionate statement of her views and no reason to believe that she ever changed it. Why would you, in reason, presume she did?
I find that taking these statements, under the circumstances, as fact of her intent, just pure speculation.
They are surely more than that. Most people don't address such topics weekly, monthly or even annually. They are, by their nature, episodic, usually brought on, as Terri's were, by provocations, i.e. a grandmother's funeral or a TV movie or, even as with her mother when she was 11, by a news report. Most of us declaim our true feelings on these socially uncomfortable topics only when provoked by events or other stimuli. There is nothing unusual about that.
These statements were not made in a declaratory sense, but in an empathetic response to the circumstances. I disagree. It does not appear that she was empathetically supporting and agreeing with the decisions of someone else. If she had only said to someone, "Yes, you're right I agree with you." one could make your argument. But here she was contradistinguishing her views from (i) what had happened to her grandmother and (ii) what she had seen in the movie. She was not being empathetic, but insistent: "I don't want to be be treated like that." That makes her statement carry more probative value.
Would it have been better for her to have had a durable power? Surely, but most 26-year olds don't. To my mind she has already paid a terrible 15-year penalty for that 'oversight.'
Then you musn't have been following very closely.
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf
I just talked to the 11th Circuit and a very nice gentleman told me that it is before the court as we speak.
Please have faith in God. He knows we all want her to live and he knows Terri wants to live. I have faith that he will come through for the many prayers and believers. If anything, this is God's way of letting us know we have to fight this death cause in this country.
Saving Terri is good, but we should all make a pledge to eradicte this the best we can. For people who have no hope and want to die...GIVE THEM HOPE!!!
For people faced with judicial murder, let them be supported and the death courts bombarded.
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.