I believe that life begins at conception and the intentional taking of innocent human life should always be legally prohibited. This is the most important issue to me. I only support candidates who are 100% pro-life (no exceptions). I support them regardless of how they believe that abortion should be ended as long as they are doing what they say they believe in on this issue. Abortion could be ended by overturning Roe v Wade, constitutional amendment, congressional legislation, or executive action. I support all of the above.I believe that the first duty of government is to protect the innocent. The Bible says in many places that it is wrong to deny justice to the innocent. Women who murder their children should only be found guilty if it could be proven that she was in fact guilty and that it was not a miscarriage. The doctors who perform the abortions should also be found guilty if proven in a court of law. There should be no legal distinction between abortion and any other kind of murder. There should be no exceptions in cases of rape or incest. I am against the recent federal partial birth abortion legislation because it declares that personhood begins sometime during the delivery process. I don’t believe in this or any other incremental abortion legislation such as this. In vitro fertilization should be banned because it endangers the life of potential embryos. I will never knowingly support a candidate who believes that the intentional killing of an innocent baby is somehow a crime less than murder, that the punishment for it should less than it is for intentionally killing any other innocent person, or that some persons involved should be exempt from such punishment.
As for so called right-to-die cases:
Any non-dependent person of age should have the right to refuse any medical treatment (even if the person would die without it) except if such refusal would result in the endangerment of others (mental illness cases). But no medical procedure should ever be done that would intentionally end the life of an innocent person. If a person is mentally incapacitated, then, in general, every effort should be made to keep the person alive. However, if a person’s wishes have been notarized and specifically prohibit the use of any or all possible medical treatments needed to continue that person’s life, then those wishes should be respected. Also someone should be designated to make medical decisions for the incapacitated person. If no legally notarized selection had been made by the patient, then a spouse should be the first default. But if the spouse commits adultery, then the spouses’ right to make these decisions should be terminated. Under no circumstances should necessary medical treatments on an incapacitated patient be discontinued once they have been started. All these things should be codified into state law. The discontinuation of medical treatments necessary to live without a patient’s consent and using medical treatments to end a person’s life should be prosecuted even if there is no such specific law in the state, because this is murder. The Governor and/or the President should have intervened to save Terri Schiavo’s life, sending state troops or federal marshals if necessary to stop her murder, instead of passing unconstitutional ex post facto laws for purely political reasons, knowing that they would not save Terri’s life.
I am undecided about what to do in cases where the continuation of necessary medical treatment cannot be afforded by the patient or those responsible for the patient’s care.
Another right-to-life issue that is seldom talked about is the enforcement of murder charges on Indian reservations. U.S. Attorneys are turning a blind eye to these cases and Indian criminals are getting away murder and other crimes at the expense of innocents (both Indians and non-Indians). For more on the solution to this problem, click here.
Any non-dependent person of age should have the right to refuse any medical treatment (even if the person would die without it) except if such refusal would result in the endangerment of others (mental illness cases). But no medical procedure should ever be done that would intentionally end the life of an innocent person. If a person is mentally incapacitated, then, in general, every effort should be made to keep the person alive. However, if a person’s wishes have been notarized and specifically prohibit the use of any or all possible medical treatments needed to continue that person’s life, then those wishes should be respected. Also someone should be designated to make medical decisions for the incapacitated person. If no legally notarized selection had been made by the patient, then a spouse should be the first default. But if the spouse commits adultery, then the spouses’ right to make these decisions should be terminated. Under no circumstances should necessary medical treatments on an incapacitated patient be discontinued once they have been started. All these things should be codified into state law. The discontinuation of medical treatments necessary to live without a patient’s consent and using medical treatments to end a person’s life should be prosecuted even if there is no such specific law in the state, because this is murder. The Governor and/or the President should have intervened to save Terri Schiavo’s life, sending state troops or federal marshals if necessary to stop her murder, instead of passing unconstitutional ex post facto laws for purely political reasons, knowing that they would not save Terri’s life.
I am undecided about what to do in cases where the continuation of necessary medical treatment cannot be afforded by the patient or those responsible for the patient’s care.
Another right-to-life issue that is seldom talked about is the enforcement of murder charges on Indian reservations. U.S. Attorneys are turning a blind eye to these cases and Indian criminals are getting away murder and other crimes at the expense of innocents (both Indians and non-Indians). For more on the solution to this problem, click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment