User Tag List

Page 7 of 18 FirstFirst ... 4567891017 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 256

Thread: The Terri Case - this is ridiculous

  1. #91
    BANNED BillyBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    The greatest country man has ever known.
    Posts
    5,690
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Stelakh
    I've seen a lot of things thrown around here that are conjecture and heresay. And, frankly, if Mr. Schiavo REALLY wanted to make money, all he'd need to do is come here, read the posts and then sue for libel and defamation of character.
    From the same guy who wrote this:

    Originally Posted by Stelakh
    I'm new around here, but I'm wading in anyway, simply because it seems so few actually understand the American system of government and the United States Constitution.




    My point is that the only person who knows his true motives are him. It's convenient to make him a monster (even if he really is), but it's wrong to do so unless you have the entire story (something I don't think anyone will ever have).
    This isn't a matter of convenience.

  2. #92
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Gainesville, Florida
    Posts
    240
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    200
    Stelakh,

    I agree that the actions of the executive and legeslative branches have been nothing short of reprehensible in this case. In particular, I hope that this whole case costs Gov. Bush dearly politically. He needs to be defending our Constitution, and standing up for the State of Florida, instead he's been doing everything possible to sidestep the state judiciary.

    I've come to realize that the Christian fundamentalists around would see their views upheld, no matter what the cost, even if it means the dismantling of our cherished Constitution. You should see some of them (theonomists) go on and on about theocracy and how it is their mandate to set up a theocracy in the United States. In fact, I beleve the pastor of the Church many here follow has such a view. It's no wonder they could care less about the Constitutional implications of this case and the actions that have transpired.
    Using no way as a way
    Using no limitations as a limitation

  3. #93
    Over 2500 post club
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    2,706
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    5260
    I believe that it's not just Christian theonomists who hold the opinion that this woman should not be starved to death. It crosses all faiths, and even into some who have no religion.

    Plenty of different people on both sides of the argument.

  4. #94
    BANNED BillyBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    The greatest country man has ever known.
    Posts
    5,690
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    You guys keep screaming that Congressional intervention is unConstitutional, yet have failed to explain why. For that, you get 'Bad Rep Points'!

  5. #95
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Gainesville, Florida
    Posts
    240
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    200
    Quote Originally Posted by Crow
    I believe that it's not just Christian theonomists who hold the opinion that this woman should not be starved to death. It crosses all faiths, and even into some who have no religion.

    Plenty of different people on both sides of the argument.
    Crow, one can disagree with the court descisions, yet still respect the authority of the State courts who made them - and see that this should never have become a federal matter.

    Anyone who has understanding of the Constitution should be able to see the clear violations in the events that have transpired...
    Using no way as a way
    Using no limitations as a limitation

  6. #96
    BANNED BillyBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    The greatest country man has ever known.
    Posts
    5,690
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Yep....more blather.

  7. #97
    Over 2500 post club
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    2,706
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    5260
    One can see court decisions and see them to be morally wrong.

    Dred Scott Decision

  8. #98
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Gainesville, Florida
    Posts
    240
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    200
    Quote Originally Posted by BillyBob
    You guys keep screaming that Congressional intervention is unConstitutional, yet have failed to explain why. For that, you get 'Bad Rep Points'!
    C'mon BillyBob, it has been said why, you just stick your head in the sand and say "You're wrong" without disproving or refuting the arguments.

    These are the facts:

    Congress orders a federal court to re-open a state court's final judgment on a family law issue.

    Do you know what Federalism is?
    Do you know what separation of powers is?
    Do you agree federalism and separation of powers are Constitutional concepts?
    Do you agree that the legislature is charged with creating laws, while the judiciary is charged with interpreting them?
    Do you agree that once a matter has been ruled on, it's not merely "creating" laws if the only purpose of new legislation is essentially to get another court to overturn it?
    Using no way as a way
    Using no limitations as a limitation

  9. #99
    Over 750 post club Agape4Robin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Bible Belt!
    Posts
    976
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    229
    The hospice nurse who took care of Terri was on Hannity and Combs last night. She said that before he got the idea that Terri didn't want to live this way, he confided to her that he didn't know what to do about Terri, that she and he NEVER talked about it.

    Makes sense.....not many 20 somethings think about those things. I figured that Michael has been making it up the whole time, and that's not all, Terri's best friend was also on and talked about how she and Michael were not the happily married couple everyone thought they were, and she often came to work with bruises. There is even xrays of Terri having broken, untreated bones. And yet Judge Greer refuses to see.
    Mrs. Truthsmacker!
    Jesus may love you, but I have to work at it!
    For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible. - Stuart Chase

  10. #100
    Over 750 post club Agape4Robin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Bible Belt!
    Posts
    976
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    229
    Avatar-
    This is MORE than a family issue............this is about LIFE OR DEATH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Don't you get it? A woman lay dying at the wishes of her husband.....
    Mrs. Truthsmacker!
    Jesus may love you, but I have to work at it!
    For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible. - Stuart Chase

  11. #101
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Gainesville, Florida
    Posts
    240
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    200
    Quote Originally Posted by Crow
    One can see court decisions and see them to be morally wrong.

    Dred Scott Decision
    This isn't the same kind of case Dred Scott was. This is a case that is decided by evidence, not philosophical questions such as who is a citizen and who is not...

    Simply put - most would agree that:
    1.) IF Terri Schaivo is in a PVS
    2.) IF it is true that she would not want life support in her current state

    Then the court's decision would be the correct decsion. Does anyone disagree with that? Would anyone out there have a problem removing the tube if god came down and revealed that the woman is for a fact in a PVS, and for a fact would not want life support in her state?

    Unfortunately, if there is a god, he has not come down and revealed anything for fact. Thus, we must rely on courts and on doctors. We have courts for the very reason of deciding difficult cases such as these. 23 or so courts so far have found that 1 and 2 are true, beyond a reasonable doubt.

    No one is saying the courts are perfect. The courts do condemn innocent people to death as criminals. In this case, given that so many courts have unanimously ruled in favor of the husband, the rational conclusion is that the evidence must be very strongly in his favor, and the chance of the courts being wrong is very, very slim.
    Using no way as a way
    Using no limitations as a limitation

  12. #102
    Patron Saint of SMACK Delmar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    7,613
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 871 Times in 725 Posts

    Blog Entries
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    751545
    Quote Originally Posted by keypurr
    I agree. There no hope for her or her family as long as she is being kept breathing. From what I hear her husband stood by her side for a long time. Any money he got paid her bills. His life has been on hold for 15 years. On the other side, parents see hope where there is none. They do not wish to accept what is happening. We are in no position to judge. And it is not a issue to play politics with. It's time to let God take her and get on with life. Then they all can start over again.
    Terry is not being "kept breathing" are you unaware of the facts or are you a liar?

  13. #103
    Over 2500 post club
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    2,706
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    5260
    Quote Originally Posted by deardelmar
    Terry is not being "kept breathing" are you unaware of the facts or are you a liar?
    Perhaps that's another way of saying "Hasn't been killed yet."

  14. #104
    Over 750 post club wholearmor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    759
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by avatar382
    This isn't the same kind of case Dred Scott was. This is a case that is decided by evidence, not philosophical questions such as who is a citizen and who is not...
    If it were truly decided by evidence, who's evidence? There are many conflicting opinions concerning Terri's condition.

    Quote Originally Posted by avatar382
    Simply put - most would agree that:
    1.) IF Terri Schaivo is in a PVS
    She doesn't appear to be.

    Quote Originally Posted by avatar382
    2.) IF it is true that she would not want life support in her current state
    How would she know ahead of time and even if she did, it wouldn't matter since suicide and assisted suicide is illegal.

    Quote Originally Posted by avatar382
    Then the court's decision would be the correct decsion. Does anyone disagree with that?
    I do for my reason stated last.

    Quote Originally Posted by avatar382
    Would anyone out there have a problem removing the tube if god came down and revealed that the woman is for a fact in a PVS, and for a fact would not want life support in her state?
    god or God? Which are you referring to? If you're referring to the one true God, he's already come down and given us the parable of the Good Samaritan.

    Quote Originally Posted by avatar382
    Unfortunately, if there is a god, he has not come down and revealed anything for fact. Thus, we must rely on courts and on doctors. We have courts for the very reason of deciding difficult cases such as these. 23 or so courts so far have found that 1 and 2 are true, beyond a reasonable doubt.
    See my last statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by avatar382
    No one is saying the courts are perfect. The courts do condemn innocent people to death as criminals. In this case, given that so many courts have unanimously ruled in favor of the husband, the rational conclusion is that the evidence must be very strongly in his favor, and the chance of the courts being wrong is very, very slim.
    The rational conclusion is that the courts OK'd killing the most innocent among us in 1973 and cannot be trusted.
    Live from the abortion mill, it's Saturday morning.
    7:30 to 11:30 a.m. Mountain Time

  15. #105
    BANNED BillyBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    The greatest country man has ever known.
    Posts
    5,690
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by avatar382
    C'mon BillyBob, it has been said why, you just stick your head in the sand and say "You're wrong" without disproving or refuting the arguments.
    First of all, I am not the person making a particular claim, you are. Therefor, the burden of proof rests squarely on your shoulders. I have simply asked you to prove your assertion that what Congress did last week in this case was unConstitutional as you keep claiming. So far, the only head in the sand is yours.


    These are the facts:

    Congress orders a federal court to re-open a state court's final judgment on a family law issue.
    Congress simply allowed a Federal Judge the right to take a look at the case and make sure there wasn't something wrong with the judgement. Show me where that is unConstitutional. Be specific, show me which article disallows it!! Until then, your blather about the unConstitutionality of Congress' recent action will fall on deaf ears.


    Do you know what Federalism is?
    Do you know what separation of powers is?
    Do you agree federalism and separation of powers are Constitutional concepts?
    Do you agree that the legislature is charged with creating laws, while the judiciary is charged with interpreting them?
    Do you agree that once a matter has been ruled on, it's not merely "creating" laws if the only purpose of new legislation is essentially to get another court to overturn it?



    I'm still waiting.........waiting.........waiting.........

    [I'll give a a hint where to start...try reading Article III......]

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us