Schiavo widower forms privacy political action committee

Discussion in 'Politics' started by green lantern, Jul 13, 2006.

  1. green lantern
    Offline

    green lantern Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2003
    Messages:
    127
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    michigan
    Ratings:
    +4
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203369,00.html


    DENVER — The man who last year won a bruising battle to disconnect his brain-damaged wife from a feeding tube is campaigning against government intrusion around the country.

    snip


    Schiavo came to Colorado on Wednesday to support Democratic candidates for the U.S. House, including Angie Paccione, who is challenging Rep. Marilyn Musgrave. Musgrave spoke last year on the floor of the House against allowing Terri Schiavo's feeding tube to be removed.

    "I want to ask Marilyn Musgrave who gave her the right to speak about Terri," Schiavo said. "Who gave her the authority to bring Congress into my family decisions?"
     
  2. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    Who gave husbands permission to murder their wives? :mad:
     
  3. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,548
    Thanks Received:
    8,163
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,165
     
  4. theHawk
    Offline

    theHawk Registered Conservative

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    10,901
    Thanks Received:
    2,072
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Germany
    Ratings:
    +5,788
    All she has to do is reply "Terri's parents did". But I supposed parents do not qualify as "family" to liberals. I guess husbands don't have the right to tell his woman if she can get abortions or not, but they do have the right to kill the woman.
     
  5. acludem
    Offline

    acludem VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,500
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +69
    I applaud Michael Schaivo. Terri Schaivo's body expired when the feeding tube was removed from it. Terri's spirit died the day she had her stroke. Machines kept her physical body functioning, but Terri stopped being alive long before her body was allowed to expire. The medical evidence from the autopsy bears this out.

    Privacy is one of the most cherished righs of human kind. It's in our Constitution "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." - Amendment IV

    Congress had no business interfering in this case.

    acludem
     
  6. acludem
    Offline

    acludem VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,500
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +69
    I thought conservatives were for "sanctity of marriage". How can there be "sanctity" if parents are allowed to interfere everytime they don't like a spouse's decision about the others' medical care? Parent are absolutely family, but once you are married, they cease to be a decision-making force in your life. That falls to your spouse when you can't make decisions for yourself.

    acludem
     
  7. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,548
    Thanks Received:
    8,163
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,165

    There is no "Right to privacy" in the constitution. There are certain provisions that protect privacy to some degree. But there is no right to privacy. There doesnt need to be one in the Constitution because the people have the power to change something if they dont like it.

    The Fourth Amendment which you quote specifically states that government can interfere with a persons private life with probable cause. What greater cause is there than protecting someones life? Indeed, the courts have no right to take away someones life without due process of law. Something that was never given to Terry. Thus when Congress stepped in it was to fulfill their obligation to give Due Process to Terry. Yet despite Congressional action the Court still refused to give her the chance to protect her life in Court.

    What sickens me is you would be the first person defending someone on death row or yelling about womens rights. Yet when the government orders a womans life terminated because her husband wants her dead so he can marry the woman he already has several kids with and there is serious questions about whether he caused her condition in the first plac, you are the first one to forgoe the death penalty and any rights this woman has to have her life protected.

    This exactly why you and everything you stand for cannot be taken seriously. You claim to be such a great defender of "civil liberties" and womens rights yet the second it comes down to it you refuse to actually fight for either. All you care about is your political power and it doesnt matter what you have to pretend to support to get there. Its sick.

    A government that does not protect the lives of its citizens is not worthy to exist.
     
  8. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,548
    Thanks Received:
    8,163
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,165
    The sanctity of marriage is pretty much gone when you want to kill your wife so you can marry the woman who borne your illegitimate children. Honoring the sanctity of marriage doesnt mean the spouse is allowed to murder them.
     
  9. theHawk
    Offline

    theHawk Registered Conservative

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    10,901
    Thanks Received:
    2,072
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Germany
    Ratings:
    +5,788
    I agree to that, but in this case it looked like he may of had other motives. The government is supposed to be able to protect the civil liberties of all its citizens(even those ones that cannot speak) from those that would try to take them away(including spouses).
     
  10. CockySOB
    Offline

    CockySOB VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    Messages:
    709
    Thanks Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    Midwest USA
    Ratings:
    +108
    Nothing like exposing another facet of librull hypocrisy....
     

Share This Page