« JUDGE WHITTEMORE, I'M PUZZLED | Main | Regarding This Morning's Terri Schiavo Ruling »


March 22, 2005

New Democratic Party Leader's Moral Relativism

Topics: News

Disclaimer: The actual title of this article is "New Dem Party's Moral Relativism." But many Democrats support life and are supporting Terri. "Right-to-live" is not a Republican or a Democratic issue, it's simply a "life" issue. BlogsForTerri does not support either political party, BlogsForTerri supports politicians of either party that support life - period. However, BlogsForTerri does believe that the Democratic 'leadership' is railed against life, and for that reason we focus here on the party leadership, not Democrats in general who support life but may have other views that we may disagree on, together.

- Sher Zieve, MichNews.com
With their moral relativism firmly in hand, members of the New Democrat Party are railing at the idea of Terri Schiavo being allowed to live. Joining the philosophies of Karl Marx and even Protagoras ("man is the measure of all things"), the Dems continue their political strategy of "Oppose Bush on everything. If he's for it, we're against it!" So, Terri Schiavo has now entered into the New Dem Party's culture of death, which includes abortion on demand; even when the child is able to breathe and survive outside of the womb. The New Democrat moral relativism extends to "no death penalty for convicted murderers" but, apparently condones and encourages it for both the disabled and babies.

Purveyor of death Nancy Pelosi weighed in on the side of Terri Schiavo's one-time husband Michael (technically he's still her husband), when she said: "Michael Schiavo is faced with a devastating decision, but, having been through the proper legal process, the decision for his wife's care belongs to him and to God." First of all, the US Congressional Terri Schiavo Bill was created to determine whether or not a "proper legal process" was followed. Under the "due process" and "equal protection" clauses of the US Constitution's Amendment XIV, it is allowed that Schiavo's case be reviewed to determine whether her due processes and equal protections have been fairly applied. Note: As the leftist Dems are affecting everything within their power to eliminate Christianity (with their legal arm the ACLU) from the United States, I found Pelosi's reference to God mildly amusing.

Continue reading ...

Posted by richard at March 22, 2005 9:28 AM


Articles Related to News:

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments

*clap!clap!clap!*
EXCELLENT!!!!!

Posted by: MoFiZiX Gr4FiX at March 22, 2005 10:19 AM

http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/about/judges.php

Looks like there are few Clinton appointees on this court.........hope by the grace of God!

Posted by: m at March 22, 2005 10:23 AM

It's not a good idea to demonize the Democrats.

Let's try to avoid making this into a political football, as hard as that seems.

What is needed is to OUT the "loving husband," which has never been openly discussed in the media.

Posted by: Susan Nunes at March 22, 2005 10:25 AM

I want to state that I feel Terri's right to due process has been violated. A Murdered on Death row could appeal just hours before his scheduled execution and a judge would give a ruling within minutes. This Judge would not be "bullied" into it and stated he "wouldn't say when or how long it would take" !!?? Come on people, this is a no brainer here. A woman's life is at stake, yet he will dilly dally as to not be bullied into a decision and then FINALLY rules not to reinstate the tube. SO let her die while they proceed to determine whether or not she is allowed to live? I pray I am not in this state for a stubborn Judge to get around to making up his mind as I slowly deteriorate and STARVE to death simply because I cannot defend myself and have been denied the opportunity by my husband to discover whether or not physical and mental therapy would be beneficial to me. Sighs, what are the morral values of this country coming to with Democrats tossing their tissy's?

Rachel

Posted by: Rachel at March 22, 2005 10:46 AM

WHEN THERE IS EVEN A SHADOW OF DOUBT, SHOULDN'T WE CAST A LIGHT ON THE SUBJECT? MICHAEL IS OBVIOUSLY CASTING A DOUBT FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE... A LOT OF DOUBT IS BEING CAST HERE! LET'S GET TERRI'S TUBE REINSTATED AND THEN FIGURE IT OUT.

MICHAEL IS UP TO SOMETHING RATHER FISHY HERE? AFTER ALL HE HAS HIS COMMON LAW LIFE WITH HIS COMMON LAW WIFE AND CHILDREN....

Posted by: Linda at March 22, 2005 10:47 AM

I would like to add in referance to one of the posts above stating "Let's not make this into a polital football". By no means do I intend to offend anyone in their views, we are indeed giving our opinions under the constutional right of the freedom of speech and I am sad to say it has already become very much polital footbal as well as Morally. Democratic or Republican, our views and feelings towards a specific party has merit because it's OUR country and it's sick that one particular side has demenished values on human rights and ethics. I will not sterotype every Democrat as being this way, but the majority rules and upon following many political debates and discussion particularly over this case it is made to look that it is that political party who has the diminished values and love for one woman. Yes it is one woman, and they think its wrong to look at this ONE case and to intervien. But lets take a look again at human rights.It has been MANY individual"Just one person" making a differance in our country's constitutional rights. Many people have died on an idividual basis' for what they believed in and in that course has changed the history of our country and human rights for the BEST. Yes she is ONE person, ONE person who cannot take a stand for herself, but will ultimately make history and change things for the better. This ONE case out of many just like hers, and it is her right to appeal to the highest courts of the country to spare her. It's time to take a look at her husband and discover what his real motives are for wanting to end Terri's life, but in the mean time reinsert her feeding tube so she may live through out the proceedings. Why let her die and then the judge decide after it is to late. What else can we do to help this woman other than what we already have?

Posted by: Rachel at March 22, 2005 10:59 AM

Thanks to MoFizix for reminding us that the 11th Circuit is not quite as far gone as others! I was about to give up hope.

Incidentally, I'm running a sort of illustrated / animated commentary on my blog, if anyone is interested.

Posted by: polistra at March 22, 2005 11:01 AM

Susan - Well said! Just as there are quite a few anti-life republicans there are also just as many pro-life democrats. Sadly though, it's the radical left with their liberal ideology that have hijacked the democratic party giving it the stigma of being associated with the culture of death. Pro-life (old-school) democrats are some of the most wonderful common sense folks I've ever known. I consider them to be the real warriors in their party because they see what's going on and they are fighting so hard to get their party back from the liberals. They essentially need to clean the moonbats outta their closet!

Posted by: MoFiZiX Gr4FiX at March 22, 2005 11:01 AM

I have heard of people wanting to kill their spouses! Now all you have to do is move to FLORIDA...

Posted by: Linda at March 22, 2005 11:02 AM

I want to point out something, I'm Rachel and I have made two posts on this thread which have incorrectly showed up as someone else posting them. The posts I personally made was at: 10:47 AM , March 22, 2005 and says it was posted by Linda, which was posted by me, Rachel and the other was March 22, 2005 at 10:25 am stating it wa sposted by Susan Nunes, which wasnt , it was posted by me. The one that does say it was posted by Rachel in fact is not my post, but I sh are the views. Thought I would point out the glitch.

Rachel

Posted by: Rachel at March 22, 2005 11:05 AM

The following excerpted from an article by Thomas Sowell:

"If the tragic case of Terri Schiavo shows nothing else, it shows how easily "the right to die" can become the right to kill. It is hard to believe that anyone, regardless of their position on euthanasia, would have chosen the agony of starvation and dehydration as the way to end someone's life.

A New York Times headline on March 20th tried to assure us: "Experts Say Ending Feeding Can Lead to a Gentle Death" but you can find experts to say anything. In a December 2, 2002 story in the same New York Times, people starving in India were reported as dying, "often clutching pained stomachs."

No murderer would be allowed to be killed this way, which would almost certainly be declared "cruel and unusual punishment," in violation of the Constitution, by virtually any court.

Terri Schiavo's only crime is that she has become an inconvenience -- and is caught in the merciless machinery of the law. Those who think law is the answer to our problems need to face the reality that law is a crude and blunt instrument.

Make no mistake about it, Terri Schiavo is being killed. She is not being "allowed to die."

She is not like someone whose breathing, blood circulation, kidney function, or other vital work of the body is being performed by machines. What she is getting by machine is what all of us get otherwise every day -- food and water. Depriving any of us of food and water would kill us just as surely, and just as agonizingly, as it is killing Terri Schiavo.

Would I want to be kept alive in Terri Schiavo's condition? No. Would I want to be killed so slowly and painfully? No. Would anyone? I doubt it.

Every member of Terri Schiavo's family wants her kept alive -- except the one person who has a vested interest in her death, her husband. Her death will allow him to marry the woman he has been living with, and having children by, for years.

Legally, he is Terri's guardian and that legal technicality is all that gives him the right to starve her to death. Courts cannot remove guardians without serious reasons. But neither should they refuse to remove guardians with a clear conflict of interest."

I think he nailed it.

Posted by: Old Coot at March 22, 2005 11:06 AM

Okie, I got this figured out now, Sorry guys didnt mean to cause additional confusion about the posts on this thread and who made them. lol ducks and hides. lol

Posted by: Rachel at March 22, 2005 11:15 AM

Read this story http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5305577.html

Posted by: sujata at March 22, 2005 12:12 PM

Rachel:

Your name appears BELOW your posts...It took me a while to figure that one out.

Tress

Posted by: Tress at March 22, 2005 1:33 PM