Posted on 04/05/2005 2:22:08 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
VANITY NOTICE: I've just learned that I am an "EXTREMIST!" WOO HOO!!
Nicest compliment I've received in a long time.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
Y'all might want to be careful who you hang out with. If you are pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-constitution, pro-Liberty, pro-America and post to FreeRepublic.com, you risk being labeled as an "extremist."
That puts you in the company of extremist folks like George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Ben Franklin, & Co.
As extremists, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
Speaking of quotes from our extremist forefathers, someone sent me these this morning:
George Washington - "..And let us indulge with caution the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion... Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principle."
John Adams - "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
James Madison - "We've staked the whole future of American civilization not on the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future ...upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God. The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded."
Noah Webster - "No truth is more evident to any mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people."
See you at the March for Justice!!
May God continue to bless and watch over America and all her extremists!
I'm in big trouble... eating without a prescription.
Post of the Day
</$0.02>
"Life sustaining care" being water and food, you mean?
What you seem to be trying to say is: Because the judge believed MS and ruled in his favor, it must be true that Terri absolutely wanted water and food taken away from her for the purpose of being slowly tortured to death.
Putting aside for the moment the fact that this flies in the face of common sense, we are left with a yes/no question: "Is what the judge decided right?"
You would immediately say, "Yes, what he decided is right." (Such faith, in one judge!)
What I think most pro-Life conservatives are saying is, "Well, we don't know. There's a 50% chance the answer is 'yes' and a 50% chance the answer is 'no.' Certainly there's been a lot of testimony, etc. from both sides as to what she wanted, but how does any of that prove 'truth' beyond a doubt since Terri isn't able to tell us herself? Would it be 'humane' to forcibly dehydrate and starve to death a woman whose true wishes we probably will never know? No. Are there good reasons to doubt MS's 'guardianship'? Yes. Are her parents and siblings willing and able to care for her instead of MS? Yes. Seems like erring on the side of Life is more than reasonable here. So the answer is, 'No, what the judge decided is not right. Her basic essentials of life, water and food, should not be taken away.'"
Make sense?
well, I am not an expert either, but the Vatican spoke out against removing her feeding tube because they said morally wrong to stop her food and hydration.
I take it that's why you'll ignore that it was documented that she spoke in '91. We wouldn't want to hurt your conscience.
Greer Denies food and water by mouth (Guardianship case - March 8, 2005)
Greer Denies new medical tests (Guardianship case - March 8, 2005)
Greer Denies motion for relief based on his error (Guardianship case - March 8, 2005)
Understand . . . and given weary-ness of the topic . . . and not wanting to be off topic . . . Godspeed to you.
Yeah, but dead is dead and the liberals are happy with the outcome.
Sure does, especially considering that if just 1 juror has doubts in a death penalty case, the person LIVES!
That is the 'extreme' measure that's taken to insure a possible injustice does not occur. THIS IS SO VERY SIMPLE! WHEN IN DOUBT, ERR ON THE SIDE OF LIFE!
Well said. BTTT
What I mean is that there is alot of sound and fury about a lot of issues that mean absolutely nothing in the case IF what she wanted was cessation of life-sustaining care.
I don't know if that's what she wanted or not. What I DO know is that those who made the decision - including the hated Judge Greer and those who reviewed him, some exhaustively [editorial comment: those who claim that the appeals court simply "rubberstamped" Greer have either not read their decisions or cannot comprehend them]- had far MORE information than anyone on FreeRepublic has about her wishes, and far MORE ACCURATE information than anyone here has on the topic. And that those who sit around saying ad nauseum "the court got it wrong" as if it were some undeniable fact were not there, did not hear a single witness testify, and don't know whether they were credible or not. Hell, the majority of folks here still believe Dr. Hammesfahr is a "Nobel Prize nominee." Even Hannity believes it - or he is a scary, scary liar.
And on the issue of "err on the side of life." Where there is a real, legitimate question, I see the point. Where a bunch of hacks and charlatans want to use the media to try and create a legitimate question, I don't. If it is what she wanted, "erring on the side of life" is terribly unfair and cruel to both her and her family.
I guess that's what I referenced earlier - I've heard many who are (or claim to be) experts state that the statements about Terri Schiavo were the statements of the clerics themselves, not of the Church as an institution.
Really? I don't recall the family saying that--I seem to remember that they wanted to take care of her so that she may live and hopefully be rehabbed.
I've been (and have always expected to be) called worse.
BFD!
This is extreme-ly good news!
Even a living will does not establish this...
Most of the time we work with what we have.
You can't argue that she was PVS, a brain-dead vegatable, and then claim that it was cruel to keep her in a bed. Don't you see how absurd that arument is? The parents said they would take over ALL, repeat, ALL care and cost. So that argument gets destroyed.
I've said it before. I believe that the caravan of charlatans who skewed the Schindler's view of Terri's prospects to suit their own purposes did them a grave disservice, and ought to be ashamed.
Glad this wasn't an opus because pretty soon there won't be anyone for the mods to suspend.
If someone wishes NOT to be kept alive, and for their family not to endure 15 years of life-sustaining care, it is cruel to them to keep them alive, whether they know it is happening or not.
Sophistry will get you nowhere.
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.