Posted on 11/07/2007 7:41:35 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
On the matter of Terri Schiavo’s right to life, which occupied the attention of the media and Congress in 2005, Thompson called that a family decision, “in consultation with their doctor,” and “the federal government should not be involved.” Thompson added, “the less government the better.” ...
In the case of Terri Schiavo, a severely disabled person, there was a family dispute. Her estranged husband wanted her to die and he eventually succeeded in starving her to death. Her parents had wanted her to live. ...
There was no moral justification for killing Terri because she had an inherent right to life and there was no clear evidence that she wanted food and water withdrawn. The morally correct course of action would have been to let her family take care of her. Nobody would have been harmed by that.
“Meet the Press” host Tim Russert brought up the death of Thompson’s daughter, who reportedly suffered a brain injury and a heart attack after an accidental overdose of prescription drugs. Apparently Thompson and members of his family made some decisions affecting her life and death. Thompson described it as an “end-of-life” issue.
Bobby Schindler says he doesn’t know what the circumstances precisely were in that case and that he sympathizes with what Thompson went through. However, he says that it is not comparable at all to his sister’s case.
“What no one is recognizing,” he told me, “is that my sister’s case was not an end-of-life issue. She was simply and merely disabled. Terri wasn’t dying. She was only being sustained by food and water. She had no terminal illness. She wasn’t on any machines. All she needed was a wheelchair and she could have been taken anywhere. She didn’t even need to be confined to a bed.”
(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...
Unfortunately, that process will never be allowed to take place. Too many special interests will keep thier liberals in line to have an Amendment pass.
The process of overturning R v W with good judges on the SCOTUS and returning the issue to the state is the lawful and faster path to resiolution.
The proper case in front of SCOTUS to overturn RvW, stifles the issue and returns it to the state law in place BEFORE RvW was instituted. That means more babies will not be aborted.
That gives the PEOPLE the opportunity to vote on it, and the pro-life groups can garner more LOCAL control over the vote than they can in the FEDERAL system.
Any other push Federally is a waste of time. It is far easier to modify existing STATE law over a period of time than it is to make new or change any Federal law.
This simpole fundamental of State vs Federal control is lost on too many people.
There are higher laws than the laws of men.
When I married my husband, I gave him the right to make end of life decisions for me, if I am unable.
I CHOSE him. The rest of you can stay out of it. I do not want my parents, FReepers, or the State second guessing MY decision.
Michael may very well have been responsible for Terri's condition. But it could not be proven. That is a terrible shame, but the world is an imperfect place.
If you have someone that wants to put young girls and their parents in jail,etc. Who is it and where is the quote. That they are going to do that.
You said — “There is nothing in the Constitution which requires states to make murder a crime.”
Huh??!!
Whatever happened to — “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ... “
LOL! You must have misplace that somewhere in your pile of papers....
Regards,
Star Traveler
Why would you assume I was banned?
So where did Fred say he ‘doesn’t want abortion to be a crime.’ I take it that you want the millions of women who have had abortions to go to prison? If that is what you want, you have no chance at all of ever seeing that happen.
I'm confused, I know it's late and all.
Where does that appear in the Constitution?
Because you post like a veteran Freeper, and have been a member for 3 days.
The Constitution is the document for that newly-formed government to protect those rights and to put the force of law to it...
My, my, you sure have gotten things upside-down... LOL!
Regards,
Star Traveler
Not in our courts.
The Constitution already forbids ex post facto laws, so of course nobody has proposed prosecuting women who had abortions while it was legal. The pro-life movement is about making abortion illegal, and enforcing the law against any who break it once the law has been changed.
“Because you post like a veteran Freeper, and have been a member for 3 days.”
I’ve just posted on a lot of different blogs and political sites, including Politico and on Hannity’s boards among others, so it’s not exactly new to me. In addition, I write a lot of letters to the editors, debate politics in chatrooms and via e-mail with others.
Announcement nay be premature.
I have given up trying to reason with people who are fixated on the loony notion that the Declaration of Independence is a jurisprudential document in our legal system.
In fact, the Declaration ranks somewhere below the Federalist Papers.
While the Declaration of Independence is unquestionably the most eloquent statement of the basis for human freedom ever penned, it’s not the law.
I said that there nothing in the Constitution that requires the states to make murder illegal. The Declaration of Independence, which you quoted is NOT in the Constitution and is a legal nullity.
New character name for the elections. Not necessarily a return banned player.
And the day that happens there will be a medical ship just off the coast in international water.
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.