Posted on 02/03/2008 10:18:11 AM PST by wagglebee
Contact: Michael Hichborn of American Life League, 1-540-226-9178
WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Judie Brown, president of American Life League, released the following statement concerning an order by Delaware Court of Chancery Master Sam Glasscockon to give guardianship of Lauren Richardson to her mother, who wants to remove Lauren's feeding tube.
Lauren is 23 years of age and, due to a heroin overdose, is now in a persistent vegetative state. At the time of the overdose, Lauren was expecting the birth of her baby and reports indicate that she was kept alive to allow her to give birth, which she did in February of last year. Her daughter is now about to celebrate her first birthday, but Lauren may never have another birthday.
Of interest is the fact that, during the pregnancy, Lauren relied on feeding tubes and a breathing machine to keep her alive. Today Lauren has a feeding tube only. But there is a struggle going on regarding whether or not Lauren will live or die.
Lauren's case is more than a sad commentary on the plight of a family battling over what each of the opponents believes would be in her best interest. Her story is a testimony to the growing philosophy in this country that some, because of their condition, are better off dead than alive.
Like Terri Schiavo before her, Lauren is not dying nor is she in a terminal condition. She has been diagnosed as someone in a persistent vegetative state, someone who is very much alive but locked in her body and unable to express her desires to anyone. The only thing Lauren is relying on is a feeding tube without which she will starve to death. Lauren's mother, who is Laurens guardian, wants the feeding tube removed while Lauren's father is fighting to keep Lauren alive.
This family is in our prayers. We hope that, in the interest of respecting Lauren's dignity as a human being whose future improvement or lack thereof is known only to God, the court will listen carefully to those who argue in favor of Lauren's right to life. It is a tragedy beyond description when any human beings fate rests solely on the subjective opinion of others, some of whom truly believe that patients like Lauren have no quality of life and therefore are better off dead.
They need to pick a case that involves a human.
I suggest you read Matthew 25:31-46 and perhaps rethink your belief.
I guess we could have dueling Biblical verses, Matthew 18 vs. Matthew 25.
I, for one, don’t want to be standing next to someone defending a child abuser.
Lightning doesn’t always give warning.
Pick a different case.
This woman may very well be in the process of receiving Divine Judgment right here on earth for her earlier actions.
I think that you may be making a mistake I often commit of confusing price and penalty. Certainly many people perish due to their own poorly thought out actions and the price for this stupidity is death. However, this case surrounds the issue of whether death should be inflicted upon someone who was maimed but not killed by her poor decisions. The use of illegal drugs in and of itself is not a capital crime and those guilty of it are not executed. The fact that this activity played a part in her condition should not be a consideration in the deliberate taking of her life anymore than if she had been in an automobile accident while breaking the speed limit. The decision about whether to starve this poor women to death should be made without consideration of the nature of the accidental that led to her condition but rather the morality of each respective course of action in this present circumstance.
Good post, thanks. Feeding tubes are inexpensive and complications from them are not that common.
All that is fine in theory, and perhaps in a courtroom.
However, we do know what lead to this, and along the way she put her baby at extreme risk.
If that action alone doesn’t deserve death, please tell me what will deserve the death penalty.
In the process of nearly killing her baby, she slipped into this coma.
Many people would prefer to see her starve to death for her actions against the baby alone. Include me in that group.
They need a different case to advance what is otherwise a noble cause. This case, defending a would-be killer, just sullies and discredits everyone involved.
In Matthew 18:6, the Lord is talking about people who scandalize one of His children. YOU are advocating the murder of one of these children.
Judge not, that you may not be judged, For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.
-- Matthew 7:1-2
I, for one, don’t want to be standing next to someone defending a child abuser.
Lightning doesn’t always give warning.
Pick a different case.
This woman may very well be in the process of receiving Divine Judgment right here on earth for her earlier actions.
It is clear that you are supporting the killing of a sinner based upon what you THINK Scripture says.
And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you:
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
-- 2 Peter 3:15-16
Let me tell you how I see it:
When you came onto this thread you questioned whether or not Lauren should be allowed to live because it might cost too much to feed her. However, it was pointed out that feeding tubes are fairly inexpensive.
Now you have adopted the posture that because Lauren had a drug problem she no longer deserves to live. You justify this by picking scripture verses that you THINK support your position, and let's not forget that the culture of death has ALWAYS misinterpreted Scripture to justify their slaughter
I am having a hard time believing that you are not part of the culture of death.
If that action alone doesn’t deserve death, please tell me what will deserve the death penalty.
You seem to overlook the fact that Lauren's baby DID NOT die.
You seem to overlook that fact that it was very close, as evidenced by the condition her mother is now in.
Almost dead is not dead.
“I realize the reason for her being in the state she is is moot, but as the result of a heroin overdose induced coma, while pregnant, how did SHE feel about the quality of life and the saftety etc of her unborn child?”
No doubt about it, heroin is a terrible evil, and so is starving disabled people to death.
Food and water are not extraordinary means; they are ordinary means.
You are good at putting words in my mouth, and perhaps even thoughts in my head that aren't there.
If the family, or anyone else for that matter, wants to keep her in the parlor, or anywhere else for that matter, and care for her, or hire someone to care for her, go ahead and do it. Just don't force others to pay for it.
Now you have adopted the posture that because Lauren had a drug problem she no longer deserves to live.
You said I should read the article, so I did. I came accross the heroin part.
More words put in my mouth from you, a drug problem doesn't deserve death.
However, if nearly killing your own unborn child in the way this woman did doesn't deserve the death benefit, I invite you to tell everyone reading this thread just what criminal act does.
I am having a hard time believing that you are not part of the culture of death.
Believe what you want about me.
One thing is explicitly clear, whoever chose this case was out to lunch. Defending a would be child killer is foolish.
You have revealed that your motivation on this thread hasn't been about making the correct moral decision in this case but rather about executing a mother you deem to be unfit. You just advocated murder on a public forum. You are clearly a sociopath if not a psychopath and I hope you seek help. Do not post to me again.
Makes my point doesn’t it?
Starving the helpless might qualify. lol
Showing improvement is not dead either. It’s a good thing the video is out. A liberal judge may try to censor all things Lauren and that’s when the lies begin about Lauren’s condition.
I have no idea at this hour what your point was to begin with. Therefore, I’ll say not necessarily.
You deny being a part of the culture of death and claim that I am putting words into your mouth, yet three weeks ago you accused pro-life groups of being no different than Code Pink and the Chicoms in Tiananmen Square for daring to protest a liberal politician’s lifelong pro-abortion positions.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1953107/posts?page=262#262
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1953107/posts?page=311#311
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1953107/posts?page=338#338
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1953107/posts?page=342#342
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1953107/posts?page=375#375
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1953107/posts?page=403#403
It is quite obvious why others on this thread have asked you not to post to them any more.
Well, here is my own experience. Our beautiful grown niece was also on heroin. We disapproved her behavior but did not condemn her to death. She did overdose and die. Now what if she had gone into a condition similar to Laura, what would we have done? It is no issue, we would have done all we could to give her a chance. We are conservative, pro-life, and have faith in God just like our founder in FreeRepublic. We cannot make those judgments you find so facile.
It is fairly clear if you have faith like we do. We are taught by our religion about Faith, Hope and Charity. (Modernists changed the latter to "Love".) Charity is love of God. Now, if we were faced with a judgment, we would have to leave that to God because of Charity. And that means we would fight to keep her alive and not see her murdered in a way unfit for the lowliest of creatures, even if she were a hopeless self-destructive addict. We would care similarly for those we disliked, those who would do us harm, because of our love for God, if not for the perps.
You have offered up straw men, "What about the cost, who would pay?" I guess you figure if pro-life people were in that situation, it would be an important issue, so you may not understand what makes us tick. Judge not, Mr. Judge.
We were in that situation for twenty six years with a child much worse off than Lauren is now, and it was beyond even a consideration. Liberals come up with those arguments. We don't.
Do you believe in Charity? Are you pro-life?
8mm
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.
