Posted on 03/22/2005 1:21:25 PM PST by Asphalt
St. Francis Catholic worker Lana Jacobs (R) is arrested by Pinellas Park, Florida police officers and is handcuffed by Pinellas Park Sheriff deputies for trespassing. Jacobs tried to take a bottle of water into the Woodside Hospice for Terri Schiavo in Pinellas Park, Florida on March 22, 2005. Schiavo, the brain-damaged woman who resides at the Hospice had her feeding tube removed last Friday, March 18, 2005 by a court order. REUTERS/Rick Fowler
You're absolutely right, I'm sad to say.
That's what I would like to ask those in favor of "letting her die." Would they support giving her a lethal injection? And if not, why not?
Lighten up a bit.
and we all know that "legal" is just a word.....Schiavo has not been a husband since before Terri had her "fall" ..and he still is shacking up with the other woman....
how can this be?
how can he decide for Terri when he has know Terri a relatively short time as compared to her parents, and from the very beginning has shown utter disdain for her.....
how can this be?
they take children away from their parents every stinking day, because they are not looking out for the best interests of the child....
well, Terri is child-like....and all these evil judges can say is that her murder is allowed.......
Yeah, and IIRC, a lot of misanthropic pet people were saying that wasn't enough. That puppy beating was indicative of the guy being cut from the same cloth as serial killers, and robert blake and scott peterson, et al.
I think PETA people are nearly all misanthropic and so are a couple of pet people I work with. They've got 4 dogs, 4 cats and no friends, and that's by design.
Never said that was the case, and no one else has either. You choose to denigrate someone who has "bigger balls" than you (since that was such an important distinction for you to make earlier about yourself) who tried to do the right thing in the face of an inhumane law on the basis of her looks instead of her honorable actions.
I won't lighten up on that at all.
Wasn't honorable at all. If she feels so passionate about the subject, she needs to start working to get the law changed. There is nothing she can do to change what is happening to Schiavo. That is up to God, the family (Michael included), and good attorneys.
The woman broke the law pure and simple. Her heart is in the right place. Her ass is not.
She IS working to get the law changed. Civil disobediance has a strong history as the first line in law revision.
Exhibit 1: Rosa Parks.
Never considered her a heroine either. Likewise, her ass was in the wrong place too.
Begrudgingly, I will admit that civil disobedience sometimes speeds up change. But I prefer to see it happen through proper channels.
I'm giving you the opportunity to clarify that you are not in favor of Jim Crow laws being re-established.
"Begrudgingly, I will admit that civil disobedience sometimes speeds up change. But I prefer to see it happen through proper channels."
No argument from me there. The only problem is that she'll be dead in a week or so unless someone comes through.
"- right or wrong, it's her husband's decision. They can't or won't look into whether he's morally the appropriate person to make the decision, whether he's moved on or has ulterior motives. Legally, it's his decision, and that's that."
Scott Peterson should have tried your defense. I can see it now "Laci wanted me to kill her. If she was able to speak, she would tell you herself - you will just have to take my word for it." - Scott Peterson using the kill Terri defense.
How cares what a judge says, they want the power to kill and I'm against it in all cases - babies, seniors, disabled or criminals. And I don't care what the law says, I find it all disturbing.
Holtz
JeffersonRepublic.com
Ike and JFK evidently had a bigger set that W does.
Blackstone’s Common Law TheoryWilliam Blackstone, an 18th century British jurist and contemporary of James Wilson’s, set forth a common law model with two main categories--the law of nature and the law of revelation. In his Commentaries on the Laws of England, Blackstone explains that the law of nature establishes a rule of moral conduct based on God’s law, which recognizes man as created in the image of God. This rule of moral conduct imposes a rule of action upon man that includes duties to God, self, and neighbor. "And it is that rule of action, which is prescribed by some superior, and which the inferior is bound to obey."
Blackstone defines the law of nature as "the eternal, immutable laws of good and evil, to which the Creator himself in all his dispensations conforms; and which he has enabled human reason to discover, so far as they are necessary for the conduct of human actions." The law of nature, therefore, sets up an objective standard of morality and right and wrong actions as dictated by God. This standard is based on the understanding that man is created in the image of God, and that he (man) has God-given intuitive knowledge by which he knows the objective standard, and is thus responsible for adhering to it.
Understanding the principle of the law of nature leads to the logical conclusion that man has no subjective right to do something that has been established as objectively wrong. Any act that violates the image of God in oneself or in other men is considered malum in se, or bad in and of itself. An action that is malum in se, therefore, violates not only one’s duty to God (to live life for His glory), but also violates duty to self in that it could potentially compromise one’s health and well-being. Therefore, the law of nature is the first standard by which an individual’s actions should be gauged.
A second standard by which an individual’s actions should be gauged is the standard of malum prohibitum, or bad because prohibited. This standard is established based on certain revealed laws seen in the law of nature and nature’s God. Government has the authority to pass laws that set forth a rule of civil conduct only, and such laws must be in accordance with the law of nature. Such laws would make certain actions malum prohibitum.[]
Blackstone saw that the role of government is not to enumerate rights, but to protect those rights already imparted to every individual by God. He states, "The principal aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of those absolute rights which were vested in them by the immutable laws of nature." early American founders, including James Wilson, thus constructed a framing document that reinforced the truth of certain unalienable rights while defining and limiting the powers of government.
A government's laws must be in fidelity to natural law -- G-d's relevation, or they are naught. The law that allows murder or suicide is a foul law, and foul the judge that applies it. Such judges are OUTLAWS.
cite: http://www.neopolitique.org/Np2000/Pages/Essays/Articles/jan98-wilson.html
by Susan Richmond posted at NeoPolitique
The police men.
IMHO forcing thousands of people into gas chambers, or raiding houses and killing innocent jewish women and children, or pushing people in wheel chairs off of the roof is a whole lot different than arresting a woman for trespassing, reguardless of her intentions.
More like a dog, a cat, a turtle, a guinea pig, two hampsters, and a bowl full of guppies. And they have a very good friends in pet store owners.
So much about this episode cries out to us of the Holy Week through which we are living-the coming crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus.
The slow agonizing death of an innocent woman, the unjust judge Pilate (Greer and the other guy), the betrayer Judas (Michael Schiavo), The crowds-those indifferent and those yelling for blood.
And now this woman-who takes the part of the women of Jerusalem who wept and lamented after Jesus as he carried his cross on the slow, agonizing walk to Calvary.
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.