[DelphiUser]

My point is that while I don’t know what’s in your heart, God does.

I am comfortable with that, and I believe it too (I was hoping there was a point in here some where...)

It is the government’s DUTY to protect it’s citizens.

From Armies and navies of foreign powers, yes, from Poverty, and the results of their choices, no.

Small government, YES.

No government, NO.

Are you a liberatarian? I’m not. I’m a conservative.

Some of the things the liberatarians speak of are indeed attractive, but unfortunately, they are not in touch with reality for they are unattainable in todays' political climate, other things they teach are just plain Waco (IMHO)

I am a registered republican, and have been so since I turned 18.

btw, read the 5th and 14th amendment sometime.

I carry a Copy of the Constitution in my PDA with me all the time, it is a beautiful document, for one thing it shows how much we have dumbed down english in the intervening years.

Amendment V

"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 offence 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."

Amendment XIV

SECTION 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.

SECTION 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, [being twenty-one years of age,]* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

SECTION 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicialoffi cer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

SECTION 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

SECTION 5.

The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. *Changed by Section 1 of the 26th Amendment

(Amendment XXVI SECTION 1
B The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

In Terri's case there was due process of law. You disagree with the outcome, fine, you have that right, but there were many court cases, in my opinion too many.

And no, a husband does NOT have the right to kill his wife. We are not living under radical Islam in this country, where husbands can kill their wives.

He did not walk in and plunge a knife in her chest while she was screaming for help. make is sound as gruesome as you can, but the fact is she could not feed herself and her brain had deteriorated to the point that she did not know what was happening. They performed an Autopsy specifically so people would know if they had made the right choice.

Go, read one of the descriptions, and stop being willfully ignorant and emotional.

Now try to use you own common sense. When a man sues for malpractice, and gets the $$ because he SAYS he will take care of his wife for the rest of his life, but AFTER he receives the $$ “remembers” that his wife would not want to live like that, do you think the man was lying?

I was not in the courtroom, I don't presume to judge on facts not in evidence, such as demeanor, supporting documentation, etc. The judge in the case made a determination according to the law, all sorts of people tried all sorts of things and the law was on his side. Don't like the law, work for a change, you have that right. However, expect me and people who have seen the dark hole that can be living beyond when you want to die will be fighting for our right not to be kept alive artificially past a point of our determining.

I have been told repeatedly on this thread, "It's not about you" well, it could have been and I would want the right to die without being tortured first. some of the folks here would deny me that right, thus, it becomes "about me".

[Sun]

I do agree with SOME of your post, so I guess we can still be on speaking terms. :)

An autopsy cannot prove that a person is or is not PVS. Check out Carl Iyer testimony:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1367704/posts

Please view my favorite video of Terri. She laughs when her dad reminds her of when she used to tease her mother, and roll her eye (Terri had “lazy eye”).

If you want to see this video, which only takes a minute, visit:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/1345652/posts?page=28

Then go to Post #28 & click the link.

Keep in mind when Terri makes sounds, she is attempting to talk, but needs therapy in order to talk. Even without therapy, Terri can say a few words. Sadly, Michael wouldn’t allow her to have ANY kind of therapy.
....

More Terri videos; etc - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1341036/posts?q=1&&page=51

Judge Greer would not even allow Terri to be fed by mouth, and she COULD swallow soft foods and drinks. Judge Greer wanted Terri dead.

Read where Judge Greer made a “mistake” (if it was a mistake) and did not rectify his mistake. This is more proof that Greer is an activist judge.

“If Judge Greer’s 2000 order authorizing Michael Schiavo to end his wife’s life were a criminal death sentence, Terri would be entitled to a new trial on the basis of reversible error,” Gibbs said.

The alleged error centers on the testimony of Diane Meyer, one of Terri’s life-long friends. She told Greer that Terri had expressed her disagreement with the decision of Karen Ann Quinlan’s parents to remove their comatose daughter from life support in a highly publicized “right-to-die” case in the 1970s and 1980s.

“There was an incident when I told a poor joke about Karen Ann Quinlan. I remember distinctly because Terri never lost her temper with me. This time she did,” Meyer testified in 2002.” She told me that she did not approve of what was going on or what happened in the Karen Ann Quinlan case.”

Meyer told the court that the conversation had taken place, “in the summer of 1982.”

Greer ruled that, because Meyer spoke of the conversation in the present tense, she must have been mistaken about the date. He deduced that the comments must have been made in the mid-1970s, when Terri would have been only 11 or 12 years old.

“The first quote involved a bad joke and used the verb ‘is.’ The second quote involved the response from Terri Schiavo, which used the word ‘are,’” Greer wrote in his decision. “The court is mystified as to how these present tense verbs would have been used some six years after the death of Karen Ann Quinlan.”

As a result, Greer ruled that the statement that she “would not want to be kept alive artificially” - which Terri allegedly made in the presence of her husband, brother-in-law and brother-in-law’s wife - was Terri’s only adultcomment on the matter.

But Gibbs’ motion argued that it was Greer, not Meyer, who was in error.

“The court discredited Ms. Meyer’s testimony because of its own mistaken conclusion that Karen Ann Quinlan was dead in 1982. In reality, Ms. Quinlan was very much alive in 1982,” Gibbs wrote. “Ms. Quinlan did not die until 1985, some nine years after her court case ended and her respirator was removed.”

Greer’s refusal to consider Meyer’s testimony as equal to that of Terri’s husband and in-laws constitutes a reversible error, Gibbs claimed.

excerpt: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPrint.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200503\CUL20050303b.html