Sky
TF Full Timer II
BANNED!
Posts: 248
|
Post by Sky on Mar 6, 2005 9:21:20 GMT -6
That's the other point. She is not your daughter and the public has no business in the private lives of others and neither does the Government.
As to antyhing BB said...like you, he is under the false impression that its ok to oppose God's law and insert unconstitutitional Government law when it suits agendas.
(If I wanted to know what BB said he wouldn't be on ignore!!)
|
|
|
|
Post by granny2young on Mar 6, 2005 9:39:49 GMT -6
that is where we disagree in the most huge way, I think it is not only right, but our obligation to impose God's laws! Sinner's and such are not going to like it, but I have done my duty to the Lord, and he is the only one who has to like it. Just because you don't beleive does not make it true. The government has not only the right, but the duty to intervene and feed this person and not let her die, as does the parents of this child. Life is precious and should be treated as such. The day we (the public) start allowing the government to start taking life and freely killing it, the day we become a barbaric society with no hope.
|
|
Sky
TF Full Timer II
BANNED!
Posts: 248
|
Post by Sky on Mar 6, 2005 20:02:16 GMT -6
Thank goodness the Supreme Court does not agree with you.
I also find it highly hypocritical of some of you to say Gods law is first until it suits your agenda, then it's government law first.
ROFLMAO!
|
|
BillyBob
TF Full Timer
The Legendary BB![/B]
Posts: 89
|
Post by BillyBob on Mar 6, 2005 20:51:54 GMT -6
Thank goodness the Supreme Court does not agree with you. I also find it highly hypocritical of some of you to say Gods law is first until it suits your agenda, then it's government law first. ROFLMAO! Did I some how miss the part in God's Law where the husband has the right to order the death of his wife once she has become ill? Is that in the Old Testament or New? I need to find that and show it to my wife in the future if we have an argument!  |
|
Sky
TF Full Timer II
BANNED!
Posts: 248
|
Post by Sky on Mar 7, 2005 17:19:11 GMT -6
Where does the law say the government has the right to intervene in a private medical affair between a physician and the legal guardian of a patient?
What part of "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder" don't you understand?
|
|
|
|
Post by granny2young on Mar 7, 2005 17:38:24 GMT -6
so you are saying it is perfectly fine if you decide to kill your husband by withholding food and water, or your daughter, just simply because they are yours? NOT!
I don't think it hypocritical at all when God's law supercedes all man's laws.
|
|
Sky
TF Full Timer II
BANNED!
Posts: 248
|
Post by Sky on Mar 7, 2005 19:54:44 GMT -6
so you are saying it is perfectly fine if you decide to kill your husband by withholding food and water, or your daughter, just simply because they are yours? NOT! I don't think it hypocritical at all when God's law supercedes all man's laws. Don't drag my family into this, they have nothing to do with it. I know what my families wishes are and I would do whatever necessary to insure they are carried out. |
|
|
|
Post by granny2young on Mar 7, 2005 20:43:00 GMT -6
I find it very hard to believe that it is Terri's, or anyone elses for that matter, wishes to starve. That is inhumane and cruel. We treat animals better than we do most people. It is illegal to starve and not feed a dog.
|
|
|
|
Post by BSIBetterHalf on Mar 8, 2005 12:47:32 GMT -6
Granny, I agree with you. Who knows what God has got in store for Terri. God makes miracles happen every day, but if they quit feeding Terri; she won't have the chance to live the miracle God might have in store for her.
BSIBetterHalf
|
|
|
|
Post by granny2young on Mar 8, 2005 14:03:16 GMT -6
Amen to that, and we can be so thankful that we have laws in place in this country to protect the Terri's of the world.
|
|
Sky
TF Full Timer II
BANNED!
Posts: 248
|
Post by Sky on Mar 8, 2005 18:47:01 GMT -6
Amen to that, and we can be so thankful that we have laws in place in this country to protect the Terri's of the world. No there is not a law to protect this woman. It was ruled unconstitutional.  Her husband is going to be allowed to remove her feeding tube. If there are laws in Ms. that protect people in this situation please site your soruce for that law. |
|
Sky
TF Full Timer II
BANNED!
Posts: 248
|
Post by Sky on Mar 8, 2005 18:50:19 GMT -6
I find it very hard to believe that it is Terri's, or anyone elses for that matter, wishes to starve. That is inhumane and cruel. We treat animals better than we do most people. It is illegal to starve and not feed a dog. Her wish, according to her husband, was not to be forced to live in a vegatative state. The feeding tube at this point is keeping her alive, in a semi vegatative state. |
|
BillyBob
TF Full Timer
The Legendary BB![/B]
Posts: 89
|
Post by BillyBob on Mar 8, 2005 20:41:11 GMT -6
Where does the law say the government has the right to intervene in a private medical affair between a physician and the legal guardian of a patient? What part of "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder" don't you understand? The part where you have added " And let a husband who is shacked with another woman (and who has financial incentive for his wife to die) decide whether or not his wife will be forced to die of thirst" Also, I find "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder" to mean let no man cause the divorce of this relationship that God has put together. When the husband arranges the death of the wife, it tends to tear their marital relationship asunder, don't you think?  |
|
Sky
TF Full Timer II
BANNED!
Posts: 248
|
Post by Sky on Mar 9, 2005 15:34:06 GMT -6
The wife's condition occured long before the husband took a lover . If you actually took the time to read my personal thoughts on this issue BB instead of jumping in without a clue, to flame...just because you can, perhaps you would understand the post where I said from the beginning that I have concerns with this man attempting to profit from his wife's condition in regard to the insurance policy and the fact he has obviously moved on with his personal life, while his wife is still alive, without the benefit of divorce. The latter is a moral issue and as far as I'm concerned the Gov. has no business in it!!! Terry's husband will untilmately answer to a power much greater than the Governments in regard to how he has lived his life "morally". It's neither my place, yours or the Gov. to judge his actions. (The Bible says so!!) As to the insurance issue, my thoughts are the courts should have granted the man a divorce, which means he would not have gotten a dime of the ins. money and awarded custody of Terry to her family who wants to care for her. As to this question; According to the husband the answer to your question is NO. I agree with that. He claims she would not have wanted to live in a vegatative state and he is abiding by her wishes. And just for the sake of any legal argument, the man was never accused or charged with any crime in regard to medical decisions he has made in her behalf or how Ms. Schaivo came to be in her currnet condition. If there had been a crime committed I'd have a different answer for you. |
|
|
|
Post by granny2young on Mar 9, 2005 15:43:57 GMT -6
the husband may not be guilty of a crime YET, but if he allows this lady not to be fed and she dies of starvation, then in my opinion he has committed murder, and you are correct about one thing, he will answer for his crime one day.
|
|
Her husband is going to be allowed to remove her feeding tube.