Isn't it God's will that Terri die?

[markus3622]

Why not let Terri be with God?

I ask this in all seriousness. People wanting to keep Terri alive seem to be playing God.

[Nutrider99]

Why not let Terri be with God?

I ask this in all seriousness. People wanting to keep Terri alive seem to be playing God.
Terrri Schiavo breathes on her own. her heart beats on her own. She not only can swallow, nurses have testified to feeding her and giving her liquids. An expert who spent 10 hours with her says that she can be taught to communicate, feed herself, and lead a full life.

Terri Schiavo is a victim of the extreme cruelty of an evil man and the ignorance of a blind judiciary so wrapped up in the promotion of their liberal aganda that nothing else maters, certainly not the life of a disabled woman.

Michael Schiavo demonstrated that Terri could be rehabilitated, and that rehabilitation would be expensive. He won a $1.5 million dollar lawsuit to pay for the rehabilitation of his wife, and then ordered it all to stop. Physical therapy stopped. A woman who used to sit and interact at the nurses' station was sentanced to bed only. Therapists have been refused. No experts have been allowed to work with Terri. She has even been denied the benifit of clergy. Michael Schiavo has been on a crusade to kill this woman for years, aided by a corrupt judiciary. Sworn testimony by nurses who witnessed abuse,even an attempted murder have been ignored. No judge has EVER had the decency to meet with the woman they are trying to kill.

Michael Schiavo abandoned his wife and moved on, yet because he never had the decency to divorce her people are giving him the same rights as a loving, caring husband, which he is NOT! The entire argument for the killing of Terri Schiavo is based on Michael's word that Terri told him she would want him to kill her if she ever got into that state. Michael Schiavo is a LIAR! Whoever believes the words of a liar is a FOOL! No sensible, rational human being could look at the actions of this man and believe that his word can be believed. No sensible, rational judge would allow a woman to be MURDERED without ever ALLOWING attempts at rehabilitation.

Jesus said, "As you do to the least of these you do to me." He also said "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he."" One day you will have the opportunity to explain your opinion on this matter to God, and to explain your unwillingness to stand up for a victim of abuse who can not defend herself. I look at it this way. I could starve my child the same way Terri is being starved and say it is God's will that he die. However, there is a difference between God calling Terri home and man casting her aside.

It is God's will that man have compassion for his fellow man.

[Melz]

Well said nutrider! Until this feeding tube was removed, she was not on death's bed and not about to be taken by God. Those who want to kill her are playing God, trying to end her life before God was ready to take her.

[Wolfcounsel]

"People wanting to keep Terri alive seem to be playing God." --markus3622


Those who want her murdered have their heads stuck up their asses.

[Lighthouse_MIDI]

Anyone that believes that Terri should be left to die, needs to spend a day taking a tour of all the nursing homes in their town or city. Spend the day looking at the residents, evaluating thier quality of life, at least from a laymans point of view.
You will find people that are on ventilators, tube fooding and various other types of life support. You will find people in diapers, laying in a fetal position, unable to communicate with little or no cognitive function. Then after you have taken this tour, go back and evaluate the information available on Terri's condition.
After doing that, if you still feel that Terri should be left to die, are you willing to recommend that a significant population of those nursing home residents also be starved to death? As you complete this exercise, remember that Terri has not had any therapy for 12 years & can you positively say that she could not be taught to take food & water, orally? Can you honestly say to yourself that her husband has given Terri every opportunity to live up to the potential that her body might be able to provide?
Now, having said what I just have, since we are at the 5 day point of starvation, I have to admit that unless the tube could be reinstalled today or at the latest, tomorrow, I think it would be cruel to reconnect the tube any later than about 6 days.
I suspect that the supreme court will not hear this case. Therefore, I believe the handwriting is on the wall and Terri's fate is the obvious.
God bless Terri and her family.
May Michael Shiavo be reminded of his cruel antics for the rest of his life as justice for him will be served in God's time.

[Nutrider99]

Why not let Terri be with God?
Just a thought, but whoever said Terri WOULD be with God?

Yes, God is just and merciful, unlike the Florida judiciary, but how are any of us to presume to know Schaivo's relationship with God when most us us don't even give a thought to our own? This is a woman denied the right to clergy by her husband, whom I believe to be an evil man. That said, we can't know the future, or what lies on the other side for others. Maybe Terri has remained alive because she is NOT in a state of Grace. Maybe His will is that she recover, make a full recovery, and be a testament to His mercy.

Before any of us pretend to know the mind of God I would suggest that we get on our knees and talk to Him. I believe that if we do, we will know that it is NOT God's will that we kill his child.

[MichaelS]

We cannot know His will, nor the purpose He had for Terri in His plan. Perhaps her purpose was to be in the exact place she is now, perhaps to influence just one conversation in the life of one of His other children.

And with that purpose fulfilled, Terri can be welcomed back into His Kingdom. We do not all get called home in the same way. Some get called peacefully. Some do not.

The bottom line is that we cannot know Terri's relationship with her heavenly Father, nor God's plan for her life. With that in mind, the best that we can do on behalf of Terri is pray that His will be done.

[Kathy29]

Food and water are essential to all life. If we use dying from the withholding of food and water as the criteria, we are ALL candidates for starving to death, and people like Markus can say it's God's will being thwarted.

No matter how we color it, Terri Schiavo is being murdered.

[MichaelS]

Food and water are essential to all life. If we use dying from the withholding of food and water as the criteria, we are ALL candidates for starving to death, and people like Markus can say it's God's will being thwarted.

No matter how we color it, Terri Schiavo is being murdered.

Yes, food and water are essential to human life, as are breathing and functional kidneys. The absence of an ability to provide any of the above requires the assistance of medical intervention to support that life, thus life support.

Terri is not being removed from life support solely because she required it, though many on this board are anxious to extrapolate that false assumption to reach unsupported conclusions related to others on life support.

[Warlady]

That's right Kathy. Terri is being murdered. She is not terminally ill. These Federal judges are not doing what Congress asked them to do which is review the facts of the case not the law. It's a damn shame. We don't allow the starvation of animals but we can allow the starvation of a human. I've never seen anything like it.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Yes, food and water are essential to human life, as are breathing and functional kidneys. The absence of an ability to provide any of the above requires the assistance of medical intervention to support that life, thus life support.

Terri is not being removed from life support solely because she required it, though many on this board are anxious to extrapolate that false assumption to reach unsupported conclusions related to others on life support.

Because Terri cannot pick-up a cheeseburger, bring it to her mouth, bite and chew it doesn't mean she requires "life support." There are MANY paraplegic individuals who cannot feed themselves. Feeding and hydration tubes ARE NOT LIFE SUPPORT or MEDICAL INTERVENTION.

You have NEVER* answered my question: define "life." (WITHOUT resorting to "quality of life"-- restrict your answer to the biological interpretation of life.)

*That I am aware of. If you have in a different post or thread, please refer me to it.

[Apollo5600]

An expert who spent 10 hours with her says that she can be taught to communicate, feed herself, and lead a full life.

Speaking of hours, on Hannity&Colmes last night, Hannity kicked the shit out of the Doctor who judged she was in a vegetative state (or some such thing). Turns out he only spent 45 minutes with her, on top of that he has said in the past that he believes people in Terri's condition (or conditions like it) should have no constitutional rights. (And other damning facts)

(Though I did not catch all of the show)

[jag]

Yes, food and water are essential to human life, as are breathing and functional kidneys. The absence of an ability to provide any of the above requires the assistance of medical intervention to support that life, thus life support.

Terri is not being removed from life support solely because she required it, though many on this board are anxious to extrapolate that false assumption to reach unsupported conclusions related to others on life support.

Your a sick freak, ya know that?

[DeclinetoState]

MichaelS said: "Yes, food and water are essential to human life, as are breathing and functional kidneys. The absence of an ability to provide any of the above requires the assistance of medical intervention to support that life, thus life support.

"Terri is not being removed from life support solely because she required it, though many on this board are anxious to extrapolate that false assumption to reach unsupported conclusions related to others on life support."

Look, Dipweed, Terri is not being removed from life support because she was never on it in the first place. She was being fed through a feeding tube, which may also have not been necessary, if I understand other posts here correctly. She is being denied food and water so that her husband can make legal his relationship with his shack-up girlfriend without divorcing Terri first.

[markus3622]

It seems to me that there is a difference between a paraplegic who is conscious and cannot move, to someone who (as all the court cases have ruled) is brain dead and could in no way recover.

Could it not be that Terri is with God and it is only her body we see?

[Warlady]

Terri is NOT brain dead Markus. She can say some words. She recognizes her Mommie and Daddy. She feels pain. If Terri were brain dead she would require a respirator to breathe. This is exactly what I meant about these uninformed polls and how dangerous and destructive they are.

[jag]

Could it not be that Terri is with God and it is only her body we see?

Yeah, that's it. :crazy:

[DeclinetoState]

Why not let Terri be with God?

I ask this in all seriousness. People wanting to keep Terri alive seem to be playing God.

"People wanting to keep Terri alive seem to be playing God."

People wanting to kill Terri seem to be playing Satan.

[markus3622]

"She can say some words. She recognizes her Mommie and Daddy. She feels pain."

Don't get me wrong, but haven't all the courts so far ruled that isn't the case? I can perfectly understand how it appears that she is conscious. In all the pictures, it even looks as though she is smiling, but shouldn't these decisions be left to the physicians?

[Wolfcounsel]

"Don't get me wrong, but haven't all the courts so far ruled that isn't the case?" --markus3622

Screw those courts and all the murderous SOBs in them! No as*hole has the right to cold-bloodedly murder an innocent person. If some psycho goes on a rampage and starts shooting the murderers left and right, I won't lose any sleep over it.

[Warlady]

Marcus, NOT ONE JUDGE WHO HAS RULED IN THIS CASE HAS EVEN GONE TO TERRI'S BEDSIDE TO MEET HER TO SEE FOR THEMSELVES.

[markus3622]

" If some psycho goes on a rampage and starts shooting the murderers left and right, I won't lose any sleep over it."

That's a very pro-life stance Wolfcounsel

[markus3622]

"Marcus, NOT ONE JUDGE WHO HAS RULED IN THIS CASE HAS EVEN GONE TO TERRI'S BEDSIDE TO MEET HER TO SEE FOR THEMSELVES"

Warlady, I've just come off jury service (although on a wildly different case) but what you say doesn't make sense. On the case I was on, the Judge didn't perform the autopsy, do the forensics test or interview the witnesses at the scene of the crime.

The judge is a legal expert, and he listens to evidence from medical experts, who appear to agree.

[Wolfcounsel]

"That's a very pro-life stance Wolfcounsel" --markus3622


Your piece of sh*t sarcasm is wasted, markus. The right to life exists only for the innocent. You may flush your liberal, bullsh*t remarks now, or stick them back up from where they came.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

"She can say some words. She recognizes her Mommie and Daddy. She feels pain."

Don't get me wrong, but haven't all the courts so far ruled that isn't the case? I can perfectly understand how it appears that she is conscious. In all the pictures, it even looks as though she is smiling,

markus,
Think of it this way: There is a drug that when given to a person renders them completely paralyzed, unable to speak or communicate, BUT they are fully cognizant. We only know this AFTER they have recovered from the drug -- in viewing the person we have no way of knowing what is going on in the person's brain/mind, or even if s/he is cognizant or not.

There are NO tests to determine what Terri is aware of. All the brain scans in the world are not going to give us that information. We can have "knowledge" of a condition, but unless we have a way to measure it, we can never be certain. We CAN however make assessments based upon witnessed action/behavior. Let's review that, shall we?

Terri breaths on her own, without the aid of medical life sustaining equipment.
Terri's heart beats on its own, without the aid of medical life sustaining equipment.
Terri urinates and defecates, without the aide of medical life sustaining equipment.
Terri has limited swallowing ability.
Terri's body processes food and water.
Terri has wake/sleep cycles.
Terri responds (limited) to outside stimuli.
Terri makes noises that appear to be attempts to communicate.

These have all been witnessed and documented.

but shouldn't these decisions be left to the physicians?

No, not really, and I'll tell you why.

1. Terri left no written wishes, so we don't know, FOR CERTAIN, what Terri would want.

2. We are talking about Terri's life -- not what we would want, or the doctors would want.

3. We are ALL endowed with the unalienable right to life -- that means our right to life cannot be transfered (to someone else to decide), revoked (life or death decided by another), or cancelled (it is against the law to murder).

[markus3622]

WC, if you believe what I suspect you believe, you will have to defend your own words and deeds, not mine

[Warlady]

Marcus, you haven't been keeping up. Congress is asking the Judge to start from scratch including meeting Terri for themselves. It isn't the first time this request has been made in our history. This is a unique case. It would be the responsible thing to do and just because all judges don't get that involved this is a unique case. Are you trying to learn about this case or are you just flaming this forum?

[Wolfcounsel]

"WC, if you believe what I suspect you believe, you will have to defend your own words and deeds, not mine" --markus3622

:

[Apollo5600]

"Don't get me wrong, but haven't all the courts so far ruled that isn't the case?" --markus3622

Based on Flawed testimony, the court is rushing to kill her without getting all of the facts.

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

Look, you can say "It's God's will" about almost any murder (yes, I'm tired of being nice about it, I'm using the "m" word), since He doesn't intervene in a visible way most of the time. That doesn't change the evil behind those situations, nor does it in any way make the deaths less of a crime.

We're allowing an innocent U.S. citizen to be murdered, and it sickens me to the core.

[Apollo5600]

Does Markus even believe in God?

[markus3622]

Homeschoolers, I see your argument here, but I disagree on three points. Firstly on the medicine, secondly on the "certainty" argument and thirdly, on what Terri would have wanted.

"Terri responds (limited) to outside stimuli.
Terri makes noises that appear to be attempts to communicate."

The physicians' opinions are that Terri is not responding to outside stimuli. I agree she has made noises that appear to be attempts to communicate, but the medical experts believe that this is illusionary.

The second part seems to be the case, that despite the medical evidence, we can never be 100% sure of her cognizance. However, in any legal judgement, we can never be sure of anything. In murder cases, decisions are made " beyond all reasonable doubt "

If we extended the argument, you would oppose the death penalty - I assume you don't. Why is that level of uncertainty ok?

Finally a third point, we don't know what Terri would have wanted, but either way a decision has to be made, and either could be against Terri's wishes.

[MichaelS]

Because Terri cannot pick-up a cheeseburger, bring it to her mouth, bite and chew it doesn't mean she requires "life support." There are MANY paraplegic individuals who cannot feed themselves. Feeding and hydration tubes ARE NOT LIFE SUPPORT or MEDICAL INTERVENTION.

You have NEVER* answered my question: define "life." (WITHOUT resorting to "quality of life"-- restrict your answer to the biological interpretation of life.)

*That I am aware of. If you have in a different post or thread, please refer me to it.

You want to define "life" in its most basic sense but refuse to do the same with "life support".

If there is an external intervention without which you would die, it is life support, plain and simple. I'm not talking about the legal definition of the phrase or any of its various connotations. I'm talking about life support in its most basic sense. Infants are on life support in that they are incapable of surviving on their own. The paraplegics to which you refer are indeed on life support at its most basic.

To be on life support in and of itself should not have a negative connotation associated with it, though it is apparent many on the board make that correlation.

As for defining life, I have never debated whether or not Terri Schiavo is alive. She is indeed. However, in its most basic sense, life extends far beyond human beings. If you are OK with hunting for sport, OK with fishing for relaxation, OK with euthanasia for animals with life-debilitating injuries, and against abortion in humans, you acknowledge that limiting any discussion to the definition of life at its most basic is immaterial, because you acknowledge that there are differences in "life", in the same manner you are arguing there are differences in "life support".

[Warlady]

Remember too HS that Michael Schiavo's claim that Terri stated she never wanted to live like that never surfaced until 7 years after her *cough* accident. You would think he would have mentioned it even in passing at least once in those 7 years before he decided he wanted her to die. The timeline of his actions is very interesting. What Congress wanted the federal courts to do was to review the facts of the case from the beginning and they just aren't doing that. It's a tragedy.

[markus3622]

Warlady, I'm fascinated in learning about this case. It's a case that cuts through so many issues.

[MichaelS]

Based on Flawed testimony, the court is rushing to kill her without getting all of the facts.

That is your assumption. Yet, the Schindlers had an opportunity to introduce new evidentiary material when presenting to the district court. With the court ruling against them, either this new material was not presented (in which case it was either nonexistent or insignificant or the Schindlers' attorney is incompetent) or it was considered and dismissed.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Homeschoolers, I see your argument here, but I disagree on three points. Firstly on the medicine, secondly on the "certainty" argument and thirdly, on what Terri would have wanted.

"Terri responds (limited) to outside stimuli.
Terri makes noises that appear to be attempts to communicate."

[QUOTE=markus3622]The physicians' opinions are that Terri is not responding to outside stimuli. I agree she has made noises that appear to be attempts to communicate, but the medical experts believe that this is illusionary.

And others believe them to be sincere attempts to communicate. There is NO way of knowing for sure. Medical science is NOT an exact science. What was true yesterday, may be proven false today or tomorrow. I can site you cases over and over and over where this is true. This leaves resonable doubt -- you wish to have faith in the doctor, I wish to give life the benefit of the doubt. If I am right, and the doctor carries out the plan, murder was committed. If the doctor is right, but her life spared, no irreparable harm has been done.

The second part seems to be the case, that despite the medical evidence, we can never be 100% sure of her cognizance. However, in any legal judgement, we can never be sure of anything. In murder cases, decisions are made " beyond all reasonable doubt "

Oh my gosh, with EVERYTHING about this case, you are asserting there is NOT reasonable doubt???? :question:

Sorry I do NOT put my faith in doctors -- I have seen TOO much, personally, to know they are NOT omniscient or infallible.

If we extended the argument, you would oppose the death penalty - I assume you don't. Why is that level of uncertainty ok?

That's a red-herring thrown in to confuse the issue. I will answer -- a limited answer, based upon what is relevant (what little relevance there is). Terri has committed no crime, she does not deserve death as a punishment for any wrong doing.

Finally a third point, we don't know what Terri would have wanted, but either way a decision has to be made, and either could be against Terri's wishes.

True ... however, if you kill her and she wanted to live, a murder has now been committed. If you let her live, and she wanted to die, what harm was done, and how would we know it (unless she RECOVERED to the point of telling us)?

Life always deserves the benefit of the doubt.

[markus3622]

True ... however, if you kill her and she wanted to live, a murder has now been committed. If you let her live, and she wanted to die, what harm was done, and how would we know it (unless she RECOVERED to the point of telling

That dilemna isn't fair. There are four broad cases

a) - She wanted to live and she's conscious - if we kill her I see your point, it is rather cruel
b) - She wanted to live and she's unconscious - it doesn't make much difference.
c) - She wanted to die and she's unconscious - it doesn't make much difference
d) - She wanted to die and she's conscious - then she's been tortured for fifteen years.



Medical evidence and legal evidence points to case c) and what we're doing is just extending her death. If you believe she's conscious, does it worry you that she might be being tortured?

Life always deserves the benefit of the doubt - with your take on the death penalty, you already say you don't actually believe this. That's not a cheap shot, it's just an extrapolation of what you say.

[Apollo5600]

with your take on the death penalty, you already say you don't actually believe this.

What's your take on God? Considering your posts, you don't believe in Him and only used His name to piss us off. I'll note that there is such a thing as justice, it is pro-life to kill murderers, and it is pro-life to oppose the murder of the Unborn and disabled, whether you recognize their Rights or not. Cut the bullshit.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

You want to define "life" in its most basic sense but refuse to do the same with "life support".

Have you asked me to define life support somewhere that I missed??? I do not shy away from questions.

As definied by HomeschoolrsRUs, as was requested by MichaelS:
"Life Support" - Medical equipment that replaces important bodily functions and so enables a patient to live who otherwise might not survive.

That was a direct answer -- I am not the one who has refused to answer.

If there is an external intervention without which you would die, it is life support, plain and simple. I'm not talking about the legal definition of the phrase or any of its various connotations. I'm talking about life support in its most basic sense. Infants are on life support in that they are incapable of surviving on their own. The paraplegics to which you refer are indeed on life support at its most basic.

So you advocate killing babies and paraplegics. Nice to know. You should write Stephen Hawking and tell him.

To be on life support in and of itself should not have a negative connotation associated with it, though it is apparent many on the board make that correlation.

The term "life support" as you, and the MSM use it, is misleading. She needs a feeding to to get the food into her stomach, while we use hands to get the food to our mouth, teeth to chew it up, and throat muscles to swallow it. There is a BIG difference between feeding/hydration tubes and respirators/heart pumps, and you know it. In this case, Terri does NOT require equipment to do the job of any of her organs. If that were the case, she would already be dead.

As for defining life, I have never debated whether or not Terri Schiavo is alive. She is indeed.

Gotcha!

However, in its most basic sense, life extends far beyond human beings. If you are OK with hunting for sport, OK with fishing for relaxation, OK with euthanasia for animals with life-debilitating injuries, and against abortion in humans, you acknowledge that limiting any discussion to the definition of life at its most basic is immaterial, because you acknowledge that there are differences in "life", in the same manner you are arguing there are differences in "life support".

Nope. Your argument isn't going to fly. In the Declaration of Independence three unique UNALIENABLE rights are recognized: "life", "liberty", and "the pursuit of happiness". "Liberty" and "the pursuit of happiness" both refer to the inherent "qualities of life" that you refer to in your paragraph above. But "life" means a RIGHT TO LIVE (exist). There can be no other interpretation. AND "life" comes FIRST in the order -- it is of first importance. We have the right to life, then we are extended rights as to HOW we live it -- liberty & pursuit of happiness.

Therefore, if we, as Americans,
1 - were granted by our CREATOR with an unalienable right to life,
2 - said right is recognized and acknowledged in the founding document of our country and all others (documents, proclamations, etc.) are preceeded and based upon it,
then Terri has a right to life, and no judge, state or federal government, or physician should be allowed to take it from her (murder).

By the way do you KNOW what unalienable MEANS???

un·al·ien·a·ble http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3 Fq%3Dunalienable) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ubreve.gifn-http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/amacr.giflhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifyhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif-nhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif-bhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gifl, -http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/amacr.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.giflhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/emacr.gif-http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif-)
adj. Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable:
in•alien•able \(')i-"nÀl-y€-n€-b€l, -"nÀ-lÈ-€-\ adj : incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred <~ rights> — in•alien•abil•i•ty \(')i-'nÀl-y€-n€-"bi-l€-tÈ, -'nÀ-lÈ-€-\ n — in•alien•ably adv

(c)2000 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

[MichaelS]

...it is pro-life to kill murderers...

This part of your response caught my attention, so I wanted to ask a question, just to get your sense of things.

If an Air Force pilot drops a bomb that kills terrorists but also some innocent civilians, is that pilot a murderer?

My sense is that you would say "No", but the innocent civilians are dead, deprived of their individual lives, nonetheless.

My only point being is that nothing is black and white.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

HomeschoolrsRUs said, "True ... however, if you kill her and she wanted to live, a murder has now been committed. If you let her live, and she wanted to die, what harm was done, and how would we know it (unless she RECOVERED to the point of telling"

That dilemna isn't fair. There are four broad cases

a) - She wanted to live and she's conscious - if we kill her I see your point, it is rather cruel
b) - She wanted to live and she's unconscious - it doesn't make much difference.
c) - She wanted to die and she's unconscious - it doesn't make much difference
d) - She wanted to die and she's conscious - then she's been tortured for fifteen years.

WRONG.

a) correct, I'll agree with this one
b) - she wanted to live and she's unconscious and you allow her to be killed -- this is called MURDER.
c) okay, I'm not going to argue this one because it's too complicated -- suffice it to say it wouldn't make much difference to HER
d) - we cannot determine it was torture, as we cannot communicate with her, so therefore we won't KNOW she wanted to starve and dehydrate to death UNLESS she recovers to the point of telling us that is what she would have wanted then, but of course she would be RECOVERED.

Medical evidence and legal evidence points to case c) and what we're doing is just extending her death. If you believe she's conscious, does it worry you that she might be being tortured?

I don't know where you get the idea that giving someone food and water is torture, but withholding it is not. It worries me that when this is done, someone will have committed murder.

You do know we are all on a journey to death's destination, don't you? The only thing this woman needs is food and water, what ANY person needs. If she were on any immediate path to death, feeding her and giving her fluids wouldn't make a bit of difference in her fate.

HomeschoolersRUs said, "Life always deserves the benefit of the doubt"

- with your take on the death penalty, you already say you don't actually believe this. That's not a cheap shot, it's just an extrapolation of what you say.

Okay, I'll amend it --- Innocent life that has committed no crime and is unable to assert their unalienable right to life deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Better?

[Apollo5600]

My only point being is that nothing is black and white.

My post had nothing to do with anything you are talking about. You are right though, not everything is black and white, everything with Terri's case is far from it, yet liberals would rather err to death rather than life.

As for it being Pro-life to kill murderers, consider that a killer's life should be terminated since that person took the life of his victim, it is the only Just punishment for such a wicked crime if a society does indeed value life. Though in a world that has gone crazy, where killers are shown compassion and the Unborn are murdered because the mother was inconvenienced, not many understand this.

[Apollo5600]

a) correct, I'll agree with this one
b) - she wanted to live and she's unconscious and you allow her to be killed -- this is called MURDER.
c) okay, I'm not going to argue this one because it's too complicated -- suffice it to say it wouldn't make much difference to HER
d) - we cannot determine it was torture, as we cannot communicate with her, so therefore we won't KNOW she wanted to starve and dehydrate to death UNLESS she recovers to the point of telling us that is what she would have wanted then, but of course she would be RECOVERED.


I don't think he belives the unconscious have rights.

[MichaelS]

As definied by HomeschoolrsRUs, as was requested by MichaelS:
"Life Support" - Medical equipment that replaces important bodily functions and so enables a patient to live who otherwise might not survive.
Fair enough. We differ on our definition. So be it. Here's the difference. I respect that we can have different perspectives.

Pretty sure I haven't avoided any question, but to be technical.

life (n.) - An organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.

As you might expect, there are several available "defintions" for it. It is rather a subjective term, but I thought the one above was the most applicable to your question.

So you advocate killing babies and paraplegics.
Not what I said. In fact nowhere close to it. But good to see your are adept at making assumptions and jumping to conclusions. I've noticed that a lot around here.

The term "life support" as you, and the MSM use it, is misleading. She needs a feeding to to get the food into her stomach, while we use hands to get the food to our mouth, teeth to chew it up, and throat muscles to swallow it. There is a BIG difference between feeding/hydration tubes and respirators/heart pumps, and you know it.
See difference in definition comment above.

Gotcha!
Not sure what you "got", but OK.

Nope. Your argument isn't going to fly. In the Declaration of Independence three unique UNALIENABLE rights are recognized: "life", "liberty", and "the pursuit of happiness". "Liberty" and "the pursuit of happiness" both refer to the inherent "qualities of life" that you refer to in your paragraph above. But "life" means a RIGHT TO LIVE (exist). Therre can be no other interpretation. AND "life" comes FIRST in the order -- it is of first importance. We have the right to life, then we are extended rights as to HOW we live it -- liberty & pursuit of happiness.

Therefore, if we, as Americans,
1 - were granted by our CREATOR with an unalienable right to life,
2 - said right is recognized and acknowledged in the founding document of our country and all others (documents, proclamations, etc.) are preceeded and based upon it,
then Terri has a right to life, and no judge, state or federal government, or physician should be allowed to take it from her (murder).

By the way do you KNOW what unalienable MEANS???

un·al·ien·a·ble http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3 Fq%3Dunalienable) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ubreve.gifn-http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/amacr.giflhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifyhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif-nhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif-bhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gifl, -http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/amacr.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.giflhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/emacr.gif-http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif-)
adj. Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable:
in•alien•able \(')i-"nÀl-y€-n€-b€l, -"nÀ-lÈ-€-\ adj : incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred <~ rights> — in•alien•abil•i•ty \(')i-'nÀl-y€-n€-"bi-l€-tÈ, -'nÀ-lÈ-€-\ n — in•alien•ably adv

(c)2000 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All rights reserved.



Good argument and good reference to the Declaration of Independence. Based on this reference, I would assume (I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm incorrect) that you are against the death penalty, as this inalienable right to life, as you have referenced, cannot be "alienated, surrendered, or transferred", despite the circumstances.

Of course, the declaration also only refers to "men", but we won't go there, shall we? After all, the document is open to interpretation, right?

And we have another problem.

We don't govern by the Declaration of Independence. We govern by the Constitution, the 14th amendment of which, as so many Republican Congressional representatives have been quick to point out, states that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Of course, that implies that with due process, the State has the Constitutional ability to do all of the above.

[markus3622]

"Okay, I'll amend it --- Innocent life that has committed no crime and is unable to assert their unalienable right to life deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Better?"

Not at all - I don't want to wander off the point, but what you're missing is what you've stated previously. If there is uncertainty then we err on the side of life, so you cannot support the death penalty and be pro-life (as we can never be 100% sure in a murder case).

Quote:
c) okay, I'm not going to argue this one because it's too complicated -- suffice it to say it wouldn't make much difference to HER
d) - we cannot determine it was torture, as we cannot communicate with her, so therefore we won't KNOW she wanted to starve and dehydrate to death UNLESS she recovers to the point of telling us that is what she would have wanted then, but of course she would be RECOVERED.
</FONT></FONT></FONT>
I don't think he belives the unconscious have rights.

Of course I believe the unconscious have rights.

Case c) is what the courts have determined (in effect) - so don't Terri's rights override those of her parents?

HS, your reply to d) is circular logic. Sorry

[Apollo5600]

Not at all - I don't want to wander off the point, but what you're missing is what you've stated previously. If there is uncertainty then we err on the side of life, so you cannot support the death penalty and be pro-life (as we can never be 100% sure in a murder case).

Kinda like you can't be pro-abortion and be anything other then Pro-death on every subject. I see no reason why we must accept the logic of a pro-death person, I don't care how many times you repeat it.

Good argument and good reference to the Declaration of Independence. Based on this reference, I would assume (I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm incorrect) that you are against the death penalty, as this inalienable right to life, as you have referenced, cannot be "alienated, surrendered, or transferred, despite the circumstances.

Of course, the declaration also only refers to "men", but we won't go there, shall we? After all, the document is open to interpretation, right?

You got dumber with every sentence on this one!

We don't govern by the Declaration of Independence. We govern by the Constitution, the 14th amendment of which, as so many Republican Congressional representatives have been quick to point out, states that no State shal "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Of course, that implies that with due process, the State has the Constitutional ability to do all of the above.

The Decleration is the foundation of our government, and there is no right to murder found in the constitution or anywhere else for that matter. Killin murderers is a different matter obviously.

[Jasmine Napoli]

I highly doubt that God would want an innocent woman to die a slow and painful death like the one Terri Schiavo has been experiencing. If it was God's will that Terri be with him, he would have taken her to be by his side by now, what is happening to Terri is the will of man for selfish reasons and to push the culture of death agenda.

[uncommon1]

It's my guess that the worst thing that could happen to Michael Schiavo is for Terri to live, and actually be cured. I would bet that he would be locked away for a large portion of the rest of his life for attempted murder. Of course, this is just my opinion, but I think that the reson she is where she is is because of a botched murder attempt. We had a Methodist minister in Dallas that did the same thing to his wife years ago. I believe his name is Walker Railey. His wife wound up in the same position as Terri Schiavo.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

As you might expect, there are several available "defintions" for it. It is rather a subjective term, but I thought the one above was the most applicable to your question.

Human Life. To be alive, to exist. That is what HUMAN life means . . . it does NOT refer to quality of life or specified length of life.

Not what I said. In fact nowhere close to it. But good to see your are adept at making assumptions and jumping to conclusions. I've noticed that a lot around here.

Fair enough ... I let my emotions get the better of me. I have been pretty good at keeping them in check, but reading that paragraph, they overwhelmed me. I apologize, and withdraw the comment.

Not sure what you "got", but OK.

Someone FINALLY admitted that Terri was alive. That's all that's needed to know with absolute certainty in this case.

Good argument and good reference to the Declaration of Independence. Based on this reference, I would assume (I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm incorrect) that you are against the death penalty, as this inalienable right to life, as you have referenced, cannot be "alienated, surrendered, or transferred, despite the circumstances.

You may borrow it (my argument), if you plan on entering into litigation or discussion, in opposition to the death penalty. Otherwise, let's stick to the topic at hand, shall we?

Of course, the declaration also only refers to "men", but we won't go there, shall we? After all, the document is open to interpretation, right?

I see your point, but we are not arguing gender, which is biologically specific. If I was arguing the point of euthanizing animals, you might be able to use it. "Mankind" refers to all human kind, not just male humans, it is not unreasonable then to view the word "men" to be plural and short for mankind. There is a BIG difference between alive and dead, existence and non-existence, the human right to live.

And we have another problem.
We don't govern by the Declaration of Independence. We govern by the Constitution, the 14th amendment of which, as so many Republican Congressional representatives have been quick to point out, states that no State shal "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Of course, that implies that with due process, the State has the Constitutional ability to do all of the above.

Now you make a good argument. But we don't govern unalienable rights, or let me correct that, we shouldn't, UNLESS they infringe upon another's unalienable rights (which Terri's do not, opposed to those of criminals). They (unalienable rights) are not granted by state or federal government, nor the judiciary. I am not going to argue the merits of the 14th Amendment, because I recognize, as did the founders of this country (BEFORE the creation of the Constitution and it's Amendments, by the way), that the right to life supercedes it, and should.

It is worth noting, that our own Federal Government has attempted, numerous times and succeeded in some, to ignore, over-ride, and trample on human unalienable rights, and it should outrage each and every one of us.

If you wish to throw back the death penalty thing again, start another thread, we can argue that one there. But I am speaking specifically of the Terri Schiavo case, a woman innocent of any crime, admittedly (by you) alive, who has the same unalienable rights as you and I.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

HomeschoolrsRUs said, "Okay, I'll amend it --- Innocent life that has committed no crime and is unable to assert their unalienable right to life deserves the benefit of the doubt. Better?"

Not at all - I don't want to wander off the point, but what you're missing is what you've stated previously. If there is uncertainty then we err on the side of life, so you cannot support the death penalty and be pro-life (as we can never be 100% sure in a murder case).

But you DO want to wander off the point, because you want to use it to convince me that I am wrong in supporting Terri's right to life. I will be glad to debate with you the merits of the death penalty in another thread, but we are talking about a woman who has committed no crime, who does exist right now, and whose wishes in this respect are not, and cannot be, known. Therefore, HER life deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Of course I believe the unconscious have rights.

You just don't believe they have the right to life, unless the COURTS say they have the right to life, right? Why then do we have UNALIENABLE rights, or are you saying we don't?

Case c) is what the courts have determined (in effect) - so don't Terri's rights override those of her parents?

As a human American citizen, Terri has the right to life. This is not in conflict with those of anyone else.

HS, your reply to d) is circular logic. Sorry

It was meant to be so ... we do not KNOW Terri's wishes, ergo we should err on the side of HER life, rather than HER death. We should never want to commit murder when there is reasonable doubt.

[MichaelS]

Now you make a good argument. But we don't govern unalienable rights, or let me correct that, we shouldn't, UNLESS they infringe upon another's unalienable rights (which Terri's do not, opposed to those of criminals). They (unalienable rights) are not granted by state or federal government, nor the judiciary. I am not going to argue the merits of the 14th Amendment, because I recognize, as did the founders of this country (BEFORE the creation of the Constitution and it's Amendments, by the way), that the right to life supercedes it, and should.

It is worth noting, that our own Federal Government has attempted, numerous times and succeeded in some, to ignore, over-ride, and trample on human unalienable rights, and it should outrage each and every one of us.

If you wish to throw back the death penalty thing again, start another thread, we can argue that one there. But I am speaking specifically of the Terri Schiavo case, a woman innocent of any crime, admittedly (by you) alive, who has the same unalienable rights as you and I.

OK. One last response, then I need to go actually do something for which I get paid.

For the sake of time, I'm not going to go back to each and every point, suffice to say that we differ in our consideration of life support.

Based on the definition I provided for life, I'm not sure someone in Terri's condition (which is different than a paraplegic to be specific) would meet the definition. But I've agreed, and it is my personal opinion that technically she is "alive". Though I am not so quick to dismiss the validity of discussing "quality" of life. But enough on that subject.

But let's start from the premise that she is "alive".

If you believe that the "right to life" is unalienable unless it infringes upon someone else's equivalent right, it explains your support of the death penalty and your lack of support of abortion. Fair enough.

However, it also implies that a person's life is theirs to do with what they will, to keep it or to throw it away. So, if a person wants to kill himself or herself, he or she should be permitted to do so unless it infringes upon someone else's equivalent right. In this regard, to support an unalienable right to life, you must be "pro choice" in this regard alone (we obviously are not talking about abortion).

Based on that, I'm assuming that HAD Terri written down her wishes to NOT be sustained in her current condition, you would honor and respect them. She has as much right to depart as she does to remain.

That said, the absence of that written declaration should not strip her of that unalienable right to depart if that would be her choice to do with her life. After all, to impose the State's wishes over the individual's would infringe upon the unalienable nature of the right itself.

This is wherein the dilemma lies.

So, how do we determine what Terri would have "desired to do" with her unalienable right to life? It is an individual decision, so no broad based assumption either way would respect the individual nature of the right.

This is why each individual case is decided by those closest to the individual involved. And when those closest to her cannot agree, we, as a society look to those to whom we have given the responsibility of being impartial, our court system.

To truly respect the right, one must honor the court system given the task of resolving the disagreement and the judgment that that system reaches.

There have been lots of references to "erring on the side of life", which is exactly why the court system has an established method of appeals and the Constitution a reference to due process.

"Erring on the side of life" should not be an assumption that Terri would want to remain "alive". It should be an assurance that her situation has been thoroughly reviewed by the judiciary.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

OK. One last response, then I need to go actually do something for which I get paid.

Ahhh yes, always leave getting the last word, then you can presume you won the argument! :D (Sarcasm, only, intended)

For the sake of time, I'm not going to go back to each and every point, suffice to say that we differ in our consideration of life support.

You are free to believe there is a difference of opinion, but fact is fact. Food and water are NOT artificial life support, as we ALL need food and water to exist. If you are going to apply your definition of "life support" to Terri, you MUST apply it to infants and paraplegics, which you have made clear you do NOT support terminating said "life support" for.

Based on the definition I provided for life, I'm not sure someone in Terri's condition (which is different than a paraplegic to be specific) would meet the definition.

Why? She IS existing -- we are not talking about quality of life, but EXISTENCE and the right to further exist.

But I've agreed, and it is my personal opinion that technically she is "alive". Though I am not so quick to dismiss the validity of discussing "quality" of life. But enough on that subject.

Why do you want to include "quality of life"? They are separate issues from existence. One CAN exist, with what others view as, low quality of life and even no quality of life. The only person qualified to "define" quality of life is the one living it. My mother says I have no quality of life because I don't live the way SHE believes I should live, I have a differing opinion of my quality of life. Who is right? Me -- IT'S MY LIFE ... my existence and my chosen quality thereof. Terri cannot choose )or at the very least, failed to write down her choice providing no doubt) but that does not negate her RIGHT to do so. WE cannot over-ride her right based upon what WE think, because it is NOT our life. Since there is no way of knowing, NO action barring life should be taken.

But let's start from the premise that she is "alive".

It's not a premise, at the writing of this post, she IS alive -- she exists.

If you believe that the "right to life" is unalienable unless it infringes upon someone else's equivalent right, it explains your support of the death penalty and your lack of support of abortion. Fair enough.

I do try to be fair.

However, it also implies that a person's life is theirs to do with what they will, to keep it or to throw it away. So, if a person wants to kill himself or herself, he or she should be permitted to do so unless it infringes upon someone else's equivalent right. In this regard, to support an unalienable right to life, you must be "pro choice" in this regard alone (we obviously are not talking about abortion).

In otherwords, I should support a person's right to commit suicide, is what you are saying? Hmmmm, I'll let this stand, I would say there is more to this than meets the eye, but I'll leave it for now.

Based on that, I'm assuming that HAD Terri written down her wishes to NOT be sustained in her current condition, you would honor and respect them. She has as much right to depart as she does to remain.

Hmmm, that's a tougher one. I will agree that if she wrote down that she would not like to exist on life support, that I would support the shutting off of any machines artificially doing the job of (her) organs that have already ceased to function/have not the ability to function on their own.

I cannot, in my heart of hearts, believe that ANY person would actually desire to be starved and dehydrated to death REGARDLESS of condition. I believe at this point, it would now fall to those loved ones NAMED in her written wishes to carry them out as SHE has seen fit to outline them.

That said, the absence of that written declaration should not strip her of that unalienable right to depart if that would be her choice to do with her life. After all, to impose the State's wishes over the individual's would infringe upon the unalienable nature of the right itself.

No, you are twisting words. It does NOT strip her of that right -- she negated ANY interference whatsoever by her inaction to do so (write down her wishes LEGALLY). In otherwords, she still has the unalienable right to TAKE HER OWN LIFE, she lacks the physical ability to do so. If she cannot do it by her hand, AND she has not written down her wishes so there is no doubt, NOTHING can be done to end her life, because there is a great unknown ... what she would have wanted done. Common sense says, always err on the side of life, because to do so is NOT irreparable.

If she lives and wants to die, and later a living will is discovered PROVING her wish, she can STILL be allowed to die. If she dies and she wanted to live, and later a living will is discovered PROVING her wish, she is dead -- irreparable harm.

This is wherein the dilemma lies.

So, how do we determine what Terri would have "desired to do" with her unalienable right to life? It is an individual decision, so no broad based assumption either way would respect the individual nature of the right.

Not so. Allowing her to live does NOT negate her unalienable right to decide NOT to. It puts it (her right) in limbo, until actual proof is provided (if ever) of what her wishes would be. Her "right" remains, she is just unable to act upon it, or order others to act upon it.

Again, we should err on the side that does NOT do irreparable harm to her "right." Just so you are clear on what I mean, I'm going to repeat myself (I am not being facetious, sarcastic, or snide):

If she lives and wants to die, and later a living will is discovered PROVING her wish, she can STILL be allowed to die. If she dies and she wanted to live, and later a living will is discovered PROVING her wish, she is dead -- irreparable harm.

This is why each individual case is decided by those closest to the individual involved. And when those closest to her cannot agree, we, as a society look to those to whom we have given the responsibility of being impartial, our court system.

To truly respect the right, one must honor the court system given the task of resolving the disagreement and the judgment that that system reaches.

There have been lots of references to "erring on the side of life", which is exactly why the court system has an established method of appeals and the Constitution a reference to due process.

"Erring on the side of life" should not be an assumption that Terri would want to remain "alive". It should be an assurance that her situation has been thoroughly reviewed by the judiciary.

I'm not going to tackle these paragraph by paragraph, because I can answer them all with one answer.

Nobody but the individual can make the choice. It is NON-transferable. That she is INCAPABLE of making, matters not. That she DIDN'T write it down, DOES matter. In lieu of this, we SHOULD err on the side of life because it does NOT do irreparable harm if the "decision" made by OTHERS is wrong.

[MichaelS]

Alright, back for a few minutes for a response.

If you are going to apply your definition of "life support" to Terri, you MUST apply it to infants and paraplegics, which you have made clear you do NOT support terminating said "life support" for.

I never stated nor implied that someone should be removed from life support for the sole reason that they are on life support. However, if the individual's wishes are known or could be reasonably determined (if they are incapacitated) and the individual wishes to terminate life support, then, yes, I do indeed support it. That is part of the unalienable right we are discussing.

For obvious reasons, this does not apply to infants who are neither capable of determining their wishes nor having their wishes determined.

In otherwords, I should support a person's right to commit suicide, is what you are saying?

That is precisely what I am saying. You may not like the decision. You may even abhor it. However, as you have reaffirmed in multiple instances, it is neither your nor my decision to make.

I cannot, in my heart of hearts, believe that ANY person would actually desire to be starved and dehydrated to death REGARDLESS of condition.

As opposed to a lifetime confined to a useless shell of a physical form with no cognitive abilities, I could find it quite reasonable. Also, keep in mind that the subjugation to dehydration and starvation is a result of society's rejection of a euthanasic approach and not necessarily the individual's "choice". I don't think anyone would "desire" either condition.

No, you are twisting words. It does NOT strip her of that right -- she negated ANY interference whatsoever by her inaction to do so (write down her wishes LEGALLY). In otherwords, she still has the unalienable right to TAKE HER OWN LIFE, she lacks the physical ability to do so. If she cannot do it by her hand, AND she has not written down her wishes so there is no doubt, NOTHING can be done to end her life, because there is a great unknown ... what she would have wanted done. Common sense says, always err on the side of life, because to do so is NOT irreparable.


If she lives and wants to die, and later a living will is discovered PROVING her wish, she can STILL be allowed to die. If she dies and she wanted to live, and later a living will is discovered PROVING her wish, she is dead -- irreparable harm.


Not so. Allowing her to live does NOT negate her unalienable right to decide NOT to. It puts it (her right) in limbo, until actual proof is provided (if ever) of what her wishes would be. Her "right" remains, she is just unable to act upon it, or order others to act upon it.

Again, we should err on the side that does NOT do irreparable harm to her "right." Just so you are clear on what I mean, I'm going to repeat myself (I am not being facetious, sarcastic, or snide):

If she lives and wants to die, and later a living will is discovered PROVING her wish, she can STILL be allowed to die. If she dies and she wanted to live, and later a living will is discovered PROVING her wish, she is dead -- irreparable harm.



I'm not going to tackle these paragraph by paragraph, because I can answer them all with one answer.

Nobody but the individual can make the choice. It is NON-transferable. That she is INCAPABLE of making, matters not. That she DIDN'T write it down, DOES matter. In lieu of this, we SHOULD err on the side of life because it does NOT do irreparable harm if the "decision" made by OTHERS is wrong.

Based on your argument, if the individual did not "write it down" (a secret note on the back of a napkin hidden away in a sock drawer withstanding), then the person's right to choose is indeed forfeit, even if every one of that individual's family, loved ones, friends, clergy, ministers, etc. agreed that he or she would not want to be maintained. The State has already made the assumption that you would choose to persist.

Your argument of irreparable harm is valid but counterbalanced by cruel and unusual punishment. A State-mandated "life"-sentence to a useless physical shell with no cognition and no hope of recovery against your will could easily be argued as the latter.

So, what are society's choices? If an individual's unalienable right to choose in life or death matters were truly respected and no choice could be immediately known, the only choice would be to not intervene at all, either in one course or the other. In other words, let nature take its course. If the right were indeed "non-transferable", this would be our only option, as the choice cannot be transferred to the State any more than it could to another individual.

In cases involving incapacitated individuals, this would more often than not result in their death.

However, due to the value that society places on life and in consideration of the irreparable harm to which you refer, society does not "wait on the sidelines" but rather does indeed "err on the side of life" to a significant degree. In Terri's case, society has been "erring on the side of life" for over 15 years, while her wishes could be reasonably determined.

I say reasonably, because, in cases such as this there are no absolutes, and none should be assumed. The State should not assume that all would want to persist any more than they should assume that all would prefer the contrary.

The best that we can do is indeed "err on the side of life" until the individual's wishes can be ascertained to the best of our ability. That is an acknowledgment and respect of both the individual's right to life as well as right to die.

As mentioned above, the best avenue for making this determination is to first look to that individual's loved ones and, if necessary, adjudication.

And that is exactly what society has done with Terri.

Alright, out for now. Back later. :smirky:

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

The best that we can do is indeed "err on the side of life" until the individual's wishes can be ascertained to the best of our ability. That is an acknowledgment and respect of both the individual's right to life as well as right to die.

As mentioned above, the best avenue for making this determination is to first look to that individual's loved ones and, if necessary, adjudication.

And that is exactly what society has done with Terri.

I absolutely disagree. When there is OBVIOUS dispute as to what her wishes might or might not have been (as is DEFINITELY in THIS case), then everyone should KEEP erring on the side of life -- the solution that does NOT cause irreparable harm.

Therre is TOO much doubt in this case, and it's all REASONABLE doubt. When this case is viewed in it's totality, putting all things in columns of relativity, it STILL doesn't make sense to STARVE and DEHYDRATE HER TO DEATH.

Let me ask you this ... if someone where to go in there and shoot and kill her, would they be guilty of murder? I would bet my farm they would be arrested, tried and convicted of such. To deprive someone of life, beyond their control, is murder. If it is NOT murder, in her case, then WHY doesn't someone at LEAST go in there and give her an injection and (according to your reasoning) put her out of her misery?? That makes MUCH more sense than starvation and dehydration. I dare say, it would be much more acceptable to people (I didn't say they WOULD accept it, but it is CERTAINLY more palatable than starvation and dehydration.)

Again, the ONLY humane thing to do, is err on the side that causes the LEAST amount of irreparable harm. Life is that side -- death cannot be undone.

You obviously deny the sanctity of life (and I am NOT talking about abortion here). Our own life is the ONE THING that is given us that belongs to us alone, completely and without condition. You think because a committee gets together and all agrees that killing her by starvation and dehydration makes it alright, but it does not. Unalienable means just that, cannot be transfered, given away, or taken away.

When there is doubt, there is ONLY one answer -- err on the side that causes the less harm, or at very least no irreparable harm.

[DesertFox]

It's God's will that we ALL die, and we all WILL die in His good time.

[UnkHiram]

Alright, back for a few minutes for a response.



I never stated nor implied that someone should be removed from life support for the sole reason that they are on life support. However, if the individual's wishes are known or could be reasonably determined (if they are incapacitated) and the individual wishes to terminate life support, then, yes, I do indeed support it. That is part of the unalienable right we are discussing.


The best that we can do is indeed "err on the side of life" until the individual's wishes can be ascertained to the best of our ability. That is an acknowledgment and respect of both the individual's right to life as well as right to die.

As mentioned above, the best avenue for making this determination is to first look to that individual's loved ones and, if necessary, adjudication.

And that is exactly what society has done with Terri.

Alright, out for now. Back later. :smirky:

First for the record I added the emphasis in the above quote.

Now, In regards to the first emphasised comment, we dont know what Terri wanted because the only "Witness" to her stated wishes is a tainted witness with doubtfull credibility because he stands to gain financially from her death.

The Second emphasised comment, The loved ones disagree on what actions to take, thus rendering that portion invalid. Adjudication I agree on, So lets give Terri a STAY OF EXECUTION until the courts can comply with the Congressional Act that requires a new hearing with ALL the evidence heard. Including the facts that Michael prevented her from receiving the therapy that was ordered, including the affidavits from the nurses that took care of Terri that stated she spoke. Including a new physical by a doctor that does not have a political agenda promoting the wholesale murder of mentally incapacitated and alheizmers disease.

[Warlady]

It has just been reported on Fox news that there are 33 doctors on record in judge Greer's court who have testified that Terri Schaivo is not in a persistent vegetative state and only 3 on record who have testified that she is. Apparently Judge Greer has it in for Terri Schiavo. Follow the money.

[DesertFox]

Well, I'm willing to grant that at least some of these people are, in their own minds, standing on principle. What I can't figure out is, what the hell principle are they standing on? :flame:

[Antigone]

It has just been reported on Fox news that there are 33 doctors on record in judge Greer's court who have testified that Terri Schaivo is not in a persistent vegetative state and only 3 on record who have testified that she is. Apparently Judge Greer has it in for Terri Schiavo. Follow the money.

Why is no one in a position of power questioning Judge Greer's motives in this case?? I mean it is overwhelmingly obvious that he has an agenda and that is to support Michael Schiavo in all efforts to kill his wife. He has summarily dismissed EVIDENCE from her parents for no other reason that he doesn't want to look at it. The word NO is out of his mouth before they get a chance to even present their argument. Judge Greer stinks to high Heaven. There is more there than meets the eye.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Okay, I think Tony Blankley says it all quite nicely. Check out his article, so I don't have to play translator.

The article Not fit to judge found here: Tony Blankley: Not fit to judge (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/tonyblankley/tb20050323.shtml)


A very telling snippet:

"It seems that the smarter we get, the more morally confused we get.

A hundred years ago, at least we could distinguish between life and death: When a human stopped breathing, he was dead. Both science and law were clear. But as we got more clever we came up with the concept of a person being brain dead, while science kept the non-brain part of the human minimally functioning. So the law ruled being brain dead to be the equivalent of total death.

But to act on that assertion a human agency had to intercede to commit the coup de grace: the pulling of the plug. And that raised, for some, an ethical issue.

Now science has come up with another gradation of near death: permanent vegetative status -- not quite brain dead, but almost. This condition, to the untrained eye at least, looks distressingly like consciousness. And, inevitably more ethical red flags get raised. It is a tribute to the moral flame that still flickers in most of us, that while it may be called vegetative, the extinguishing of that entity's life seems different in kind from disposing of a head of lettuce."

[brainshrub]

Why not let Terri be with God?

I ask this in all seriousness. People wanting to keep Terri alive seem to be playing God.

God had nothing to do with this.

Teri accidentally killed herself. Her husband did everything he could for 8 years, then turned the case over to the courts to make a call on whether Teri would reasonably want to live this way.

It's a simple sad story with no winners, no evil people, no underground Liberal conspiracy and this case sets no legal precedent.

So why the brouhaha?

The RW rank-and-file identify strongly with the Schiavo case because the mythology built by Schindlers fit the paradigm that conservatives are victims of a culture that wants to see them destroyed. It doesn't matter how many elections Republicans win, how many levels of government they control or how many media outlets drill the party line: Social Conservatives feel they are powerless to stop the intellectual latte-drinking Liberals from destroying their way of life.

When Teri Schiavo's body dies, this will be a validation of the victim-based belief system that much of conservative ideology is based on. You can be sure that the corporate elite knows this, and Republicans are hoping to tap into this feeling of victimhood to energize a new generation of conservatives. This is why Bush was willing to cut his vacation short for Schiavo, where the deaths of hundreds of thousands of tsunami victims did not.

The fact is that Teri is Dead. She died decades ago. We can choose to shake our heads and give in to the fear-mongers... or we can learn from Teri how fragile life is, and how important it is that we help each other live our lives the best we can.

The rhetoric from the RW over this issue has been heartening: "A nation is judged by how it cares for it's weakest members" Republicans now declare. "Society has a responsibility to make sure that the infirm are able to get decent care and justice regardless of social status" is the mantra that you read repeatedly on conservative forums.

Liberal ideals, like life itself, can flourish in the most unlikely places.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

brainshrub,
You are an idiot (my opinion), and a liar (reality).
God had nothing to do with this.

God has to do with EVERYTHING, whether you acknowledge, recognize, or believe it.

Teri accidentally killed herself.

No she didn't -- she is STILL alive (as of right now), and she STILL exists. She may not have the quality of life YOU think she should have, but she IS alive.

Her husband did everything he could for 8 years, . . .

Everything he could to kill her -- and still is.

then turned the case over to the courts to make a call on whether Teri would reasonably want to live this way.

It wasnt Michael Schiavo's NOR the court's decision to make. It was Terri's and she didn't have the foresight to write it down (not too many 20 year olds sit around contemplating their mortality).

It's a simple sad story with no winners, no evil people, no underground Liberal conspiracy and this case sets no legal precedent.

WRONG. There ARE evil people, and they are killing Terri Schiavo. That YOU don't understand this doesn't surprise me in the least.

So why the brouhaha?'

Because the judiciary of the United States of America is ordering the execution by starvation and dehydration of an innocent woman. Again, that you don't understand this doesn't surprise me.

The RW rank-and-file identify strongly with the Schiavo case because the mythology built by Schindlers fit the paradigm that conservatives are victims of a culture that wants to see them destroyed. It doesn't matter how many elections Republicans win, how many levels of government they control or how many media outlets drill the party line: Social Conservatives feel they are powerless to stop the intellectual latte-drinking Liberals from destroying their way of life.

There is no "mythology" -- that's EXACTLY what the liberal agend is all about. They believe in NO sanctity of life whatsoever ... it matters not if you are unborn, disabled, brain damaged, who cares . . . unless a person's QUALITY OF LIFE is that of what the liberals say, they are not worth living, so kill them all.

When Teri Schiavo's body dies, this will be a validation of the victim-based belief system that much of conservative ideology is based on.

Idiocy and lies, yet again. The conservatives and the Republican ideology is NOT that of victim-based . . . you are SO way off base here. That's the liberals. Minority discrimination, gender discrimination, sexual orientation discrimination; oppression of the elderly, hungry, homeless, children . . . Liberals want to paint EVERYONE they can as a victim, so their party can show their power and might as their savior.

You can be sure that the corporate elite knows this, and Republicans are hoping to tap into this feeling of victimhood to energize a new generation of conservatives. This is why Bush was willing to cut his vacation short for Schiavo, where the deaths of hundreds of thousands of tsunami victims did not.

This is so despicable, it doesn't even deserve to be honored with a response. You disgust me.

The fact is that Teri is Dead. She died decades ago. We can choose to shake our heads and give in to the fear-mongers... or we can learn from Teri how fragile life is, and how important it is that we help each other live our lives the best we can.

SHE IS NOT DEAD. Because she does not have the quality of life that YOU think she should have to QUALIFY to continue living, is irrelevant. In this country, we have an unalienable right to life (to EXIST). It's not transferable, it's not revokable, and it's NOT anyone else's decision to destroy it.

The rhetoric from the RW over this issue has been heartening: "A nation is judged by how it cares for it's weakest members" Republicans now declare. "Society has a responsibility to make sure that the infirm are able to get decent care and justice regardless of social status" is the mantra that you read repeatedly on conservative forums.

This isn't rhetoric . . . we are trying to save this woman's LIFE. She is a disabled person, nothing more, nothing less. You would have her KILLED because she does not "live" by your standards, but her life isn't your life, and it's not anybody but her's to do with. That her wishes cannot be known WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT (because no known written copy of them exists), should stop anything further from happening, i.e. she should be kept alive. We should always aim for a solution that does a lesser amount of harm, and at LEAST no irreparable harm.

If Terri were left to continue existing receiving only food and water (no medical treatment/intervention), and a written copy of her wishes were to surface that she would want the feeding/hydration tubes removed, they still COULD BE. If Terri dies (under today's circumstances), and a written copy of her wishes were to surface that she would want to be kept alive, irreparable harm has been done--murder committed.

Life deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Liberal ideals, like life itself, can flourish in the most unlikely places.

Liberal ideas do not flourish, they squash truth, terminate hope, devour goodness and ignore all reason, logic, and common sense.

[Rink]

A question offhand for the people here, How many of these Commandments have Michael schiavo and his cohorts have violated??

These are God's laws, not man's hence Michael Schiavo and his cohorts will be judged by God through these Commandments when their time comes:



THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.

#1. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.
#2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
#3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain.
#4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
#5. Honor thy father and thy mother.
#6. Thou shalt not kill.
#7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
#8. Thou shalt not steal.
#9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
#10. Thou shalt not covet.

[markus3622]

Brainshrub - you make some very good points there.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Brainshrub - you make some very good points there.

:unsmile: No, he doesn't. He starts off by asserting that Terri did this to herself. There's reasonable evidence that Michael had something to do with it, which is why he's so determined to snuff her out.

[whipple]

"That's a very pro-life stance Wolfcounsel" --markus3622


Your piece of sh*t sarcasm is wasted, markus. The right to life exists only for the innocent. You may flush your liberal, bullsh*t remarks now, or stick them back up from where they came.

Since nobody is innocent your outrage is wasted Wolf.

[whipple]

What's your take on God? Considering your posts, you don't believe in Him and only used His name to piss us off. I'll note that there is such a thing as justice, it is pro-life to kill murderers, and it is pro-life to oppose the murder of the Unborn and disabled, whether you recognize their Rights or not. Cut the bullshit.

"Pro-life to kill...."

HAhahahahahaaaaahaaha

:thumb:

I love irony.

Have you lent out your last braincell?

[Apollo5600]

"Pro-life to kill...."

HAhahahahahaaaaahaaha

:thumb:

I love irony.

Have you lent out your last braincell?

Look whos talking, perhaps you should bother reading my points and considering them.. If not, then **** off!

[brainshrub]

No she didn't -- she is STILL alive (as of right now), and she STILL exists. She may not have the quality of life YOU think she should have, but she IS alive.

She's dead. Case in point:

http://www.thoughtcrimes.org/mt/images/schiavo_ct_scan.jpg

Mrs. Schiavo's cortex is not damaged, it is DEAD. The brain tissue died from lack of oxygen. In fact, the cortex has shriveled and liquefied.

Everything he could to kill her -- and still is.

He turned the case over to the courts to ask as a rational arbiter to decide what Terri would reasonably want. He took care of her for eight years and she never got as much as a bed-sore. (Read the court docs)

It wasnt Michael Schiavo's NOR the court's decision to make. It was Terri's and she didn't have the foresight to write it down (not too many 20 year olds sit around contemplating their mortality).

Mr. Schiavo made no decision! He asked the courts to determine what Terri would want based on the testimony of the people who knew her when she was alive.

The courts, after carefully reviewing the evidence, decided that Teri would have chosen to go off the tube. Unless you have a better way to determine what Terri would have wanted, you have no right to go against her wishes.

WRONG. There ARE evil people, and they are killing Terri Schiavo. That YOU don't understand this doesn't surprise me in the least. Because the judiciary of the United States of America is ordering the execution by starvation and dehydration of an innocent woman. Again, that you don't understand this doesn't surprise me.

Terri died a long time ago, she accidentally killed herself. The courts determined that this is what Terri would have wanted.

You don't understand this because you refuse to read the actual case files. You are behaving like someone who is trying to put together a bicycle, but refusing to read the instructions.

All the case files can be found here:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

There is no "mythology" -- that's EXACTLY what the liberal agend is all about. They believe in NO sanctity of life whatsoever ... it matters not if you are unborn, disabled, brain damaged, who cares . . . unless a person's QUALITY OF LIFE is that of what the liberals say, they are not worth living, so kill them all.

Being a Liberal means that you value policies that recognise the dignity inherent in all people. Liberals deeply value about human life; Which is why they fight for everyones right to be free from oppression.

Idiocy and lies, yet again. The conservatives and the Republican ideology is NOT that of victim-based . . . you are SO way off base here. That's the liberals. Minority discrimination, gender discrimination, sexual orientation discrimination; oppression of the elderly, hungry, homeless, children . . . Liberals want to paint EVERYONE they can as a victim, so their party can show their power and might as their savior.

You are projecting your own fears.

The truth is that Liberals fight against discrimination and oppression because they value life and don't believe that anyone deserves to suffer based on something they had no control over.
What motivates a Liberal activist is love for humanity and a desire to make this world a better place.

This is so despicable, it doesn't even deserve to be honored with a response. You disgust me.

Let's see: Bush hasn't cut his vacation for a military funerals, a tsunami or a congressional 9/11 investigation. But he drops everything for Teri. Why?

It sure isn't because he's pro-life! Bush knows that there is no legal way to prevent the inevitable. He feigns concern because the issue feeds into the persecution complex that many conservatives have been programmed to believe.

Consider: Last week, thanks to a law that Bush signed as Govenor of Texas, a baby was killed after removal from life support against the wishes of the family. (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3084934) The Texas law says that the families ability to pay plays a big role in deciding whether a person lives or dies. Where was Bush to comment on that case?

we have an unalienable right to life (to EXIST). It's not transferable, it's not revokable, and it's NOT anyone else's decision to destroy it.

Which is why Liberals, by and large, oppose the death penalty. As opposed to most conservatives.

Liberal ideas do not flourish, they squash truth, terminate hope, devour goodness and ignore all reason, logic, and common sense.

Enjoy the Liberal idea of free speech that lets you make such a comment against all reason, logic and common sense.

[DesertFox]

I have a problem with that putative MRI of her brain. In fact, more than one.

First, I've seen zero explanation of the MRI by someone qualified to discuss it. People put it up as if it's self-explanatory. It isn't.

Second, it's published by liberals. After all the lying liberals have done, I don't trust a liberal on such things. Liberals will fake anything to get their way and this "image" could simply be another fake.

Third, even if real it proves nothing. What matters isn't what her brain looks like on an MRI, but how she actually behaves in real life. There are just too many instances in medical history of someone with an injury that should have made them a vegetable -- but did not; and there is ample videotape of Terri Schiavo responding appropriately to external stimuli.

Fourth, even if that MRI does prove that Terri is a vegetable (and I don't think it does), that gives no one license to torture her -- and death by dehydration is torture.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

She's dead. Case in point:

Mrs. Schiavo's cortex is not damaged, it is DEAD. The brain tissue died from lack of oxygen. In fact, the cortex has shriveled and liquefied.

You can post all the pictures your heart desires, none of them change BIOLOGICAL FACT. She IS alive.

If she were dead, her body would cease to function on it's own. "Biological Life" is determined by existence -- she has not ceased to exist, her body still functions (maybe not the way YOU think it should, but it does) ON IT'S OWN. Quality if "life" is not relevant, no matter how many ways you say it, write it, print it, post it, think it, believe it. The "right to life" is the right to exist -- not HOW you exist. You should try taking biology again -- if the heart is beating, the lungs, kidneys and bowels are functioning all without the aid of equipment, and her body STILL processes food and water, the person IS ALIVE.


He turned the case over to the courts to ask as a rational arbiter to decide what Terri would reasonably want. He took care of her for eight years and she never got as much as a bed-sore. (Read the court docs).

It was not HIS life to do so. HER unalienable right to life is hers, and hers alone. It is NON-transferable, NON-revokable, and cannot be terminated without her consent and command. She did not give it. She could not give it. Doesn't MATTER what HE says -- that's called "hearsay" evidence, and USUALLY is not accepted in a court of law (except by REALLY braindead judges, as in this case).


Mr. Schiavo's made no decision! He asked the courts to decide what Terri would want based on the testimony of the people who knew her when she was alive.

Liar. He DID make the decision she should not FURTHER EXIST. He took this to the courts, he used hearsay evidence from HIMSELF, and HIS brother and wife -- are you saying Terri's parents DIDN'T know her when she was "alive", and couldn't know of their daughter's wishes?

Besides, this is an irrelevant point, yet again. Her wishes were not written, hearsay evidence should NEVER count unless CREDIBLY and SUBSTANTIALLY corroborated, most SPECIFICALLY in regards to an UNALIENABLE right.

Finally, there was no REASON for the "decision" to be made. She was NOT in the immediate throws of death. She wasn't in eminent mortal peril, danger, or immense suffering.

The courts, after carefully reviewing the evidence, decided that Teri would have chosen to go off the tube.

AGAIN, it WASN'T their call to make. The right belongs to Terri and Terri alone unless SHE specifically grants it to another. She didn't, there's no credible and substantial proof she did, and therefore the courts illegally sentenced her to die. That they DID it, doesn't make it LEGAL.

Unless you have a better way to determine what Terri would have wanted, you have no right to go against her wishes.

No one KNOWS her wishes, they cannot CONVINCINGLY be established. THAT is the PROBLEM. The courts sidestepped her unalienable right to life, plain and simple.



Terri died a long time ago, she accidentally killed herself. The courts determined that this is what Terri would have wanted.

You can keep posting this all you want, but YOU ARE WRONG, and repetitive posting won't prove you anything but (wrong).

You don't understand this because you refuse to read the actual case files. You are behaving like someone who is trying to put together a bicycle, but refusing to read the instructions.

If you would REALLY like me to spell it out again, and again, and again, and again, I can.

Life is an unalienable right (recognized in the founding document of this country, on which ALL others are based).
Unalienable means it cannot be transfered to another (for the other to make a decision concerning the right), it cannot be revoked (by anyone who is not the owner of the right), nor can it be terminated (by anyone other than the Owner, those the OWNER deem's able, and God).
Terri did not leave written wishes regarding her unalienable right to life.
Terri's wishes CANNOT be established credible and substantially on ANY point -- we do not, and cannot know if Terri would have wanted to starve and dehydrate to death, we do not, and cannot know if Terri would have wanted to live.
Hearsay evidence is NOT credible and substantial evidence.
Ergo, if a decision MUST be made -- as this case demands, the ONLY legal decision is to side with the position of LEAST harm and NO irreparable harm.
Life is not irreparable (if a written note were ever produced FROM/BY Terri saying she wants to die, her life could STILL be terminated)
Death is irreparable. (if a written note were ever produced FROM/BY Terri saying she would not want to starve and dehydrate to death, she would be DEAD.)

I didn't get that in my Liberal handbook when I signed on. Being a Liberal means that you value policies that recognise a persons inherent right to be free.

But liberals, in THIS case, are denying Terri's UNALIENABLE right to be FREE to LIVE (exist). Funny, that doesn't jive with your "definition."

Liberals care value about human life;

What a load of bull ca-ca. You value a certain QUALITY of life, NOT life itself. If YOU (figuartive for liberals) deem a person's quality of life NOT to be up to the standards YOU have decided are worthy, then their "life value" doesn't have any.

I (figurative for conservatives) value life in ALL it's facets. Unborn, Preborn, Brain-damaged, Paralyzed, Disabled, Mentally Impaired, Innocent, and Incapacitated.

Which is why, as a group, we oppose the death penalty and fight for everyones right to be free from oppression.

You can keep throwing the anti-death penalty red-herring in here all you want, but I am NOT fishing so I will not bite. You wanna argue this one, start another thread.



You are projecting your own fears onto liberals.

No, I am rightfully pointing out that if we cannot trust our government, our judiciary, to RECOGNIZE, ACCEPT, and SUPPORT our unalienable right (to life) -- which, is NOT granted by man, but by the CREATOR, before ALL OTHER RIGHTS -- then we, and our very FREEDOM are ALL at risk.

That YOU are so willing to concede an unalienable right -- and specifically one that belongs to another -- is sickening, disgusting, and revolting to me as a FREEDOM loving and supporting citizen of this great nation.

The truth is that Liberals fight against discrimination and oppression because they value life and don't believe that anyone deserves to suffer based on something they had no control over.
What motivates a Liberal activist is love for humanity and a desire to make this world a better place.

Son, you can't handle the truth.


Let's see: Bush hasn't cut his vacation for a military funerals, a tsunami or a congressional 9/11 investigation. When Bush was Govenor he regularly killed people on death row without even reviewing their cases!
Last week, thanks to a law that Bush signed a baby was killed after removal from life support against the wishes of the family. (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3084934) The law says that the families ability to pay plays a big role in deciding whether a person lives or dies.
But Bush drops everything for Schiavo, as case!
Why? It sure isn't because he's pro-life! Bush knows that there is no legal way to prevent the inevitable, but the issue feeds into the persecution complex that many conservatives have been programmed to believe.
Which is why Liberals, by and large, oppose the death penalty. As opposed to most pro-death conservatives.
Enjoy the Liberal idea of free speech that lets you make such a comment against all reason, logic and common sense.


http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/blah.bmphttp://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/blah.bmphttp://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/blah.bmp

You have no reason, logic and common sense, and it is quite obvious your stupidity is showing.

This mouse is no longer worth playing with.

[Patriot Heart]

Liberals value life. Now THAT is an oxymoron if there EVER was one. George Tiller's late term abortion factory comes to mind instantly!

[Apollo5600]

Which is why Liberals, by and large, oppose the death penalty. As opposed to most conservatives.

Which is why liberals, by and large, are pro-abortion. As opposed to most conservatives. Actually buffoon, liberals just have compassion on evil people because they are evil, none of them care about the innocent, and those who DO need to take a better look at their hellish party.

The truth is that Liberals fight against discrimination and oppression because they value life and don't believe that anyone deserves to suffer based on something they had no control over.
What motivates a Liberal activist is love for humanity and a desire to make this world a better place.

Except if you're a Arab being freed by a Republican President. Inwhich case the libs don't give a flying **** about you, and would rather you be back under whatever Dictator used to be torturing you.

Or if you are Terri, they will ignore the sworn testimony of other Doctors and Nurses, refuse to go through the case anew, and rush to kill you.

[Apollo5600]

Mr. Schiavo made no decision! He asked the courts to determine what Terri would want based on the testimony of the people who knew her when she was alive.

The courts, after carefully reviewing the evidence, decided that Teri would have chosen to go off the tube. Unless you have a better way to determine what Terri would have wanted, you have no right to go against her wishes.

If that's the case, they ignored the testimony of her FAMILY which said quite the contrary. BTW, it took 7 years for her "husband" to remember she wanted her tube pulled, before that (according to Fox News as I just heard) he is onrecord as saying he did not know what she wanted.

[Rink]

you know about this:

http://www.thoughtcrimes.org/mt/images/schiavo_ct_scan.jpg

If I am correct there has never been any brain scans of terry schiavo.

So this is a fake if i ever saw it and the blue one can be made by ANYONE with a graphics program.

This isnt her medical record and I doubt you have access to em either.

Shrub quit posting fake images and attributing them to someone that they arent of.

[Kathy29]

That is your assumption. Yet, the Schindlers had an opportunity to introduce new evidentiary material when presenting to the district court. With the court ruling against them, either this new material was not presented (in which case it was either nonexistent or insignificant or the Schindlers' attorney is incompetent) or it was considered and dismissed.

No new evidence was presented. It wasn't allowed. All judges ruling on the case relied only one Judge Greer's findings. The Schindlers have been trying to get a trial de novo, literally a new trial so they could present the new evidence. Unfortunately, de novo motions are made in front of the same judge who had the trial initially. So it's not surprising the motion was denied.

Judge Greer did nothing wrong and that's what all the judges said. The rightness or wrongness of his rulings was never addressed, shouldn't be addressed.

What happened is that Judge Greer using judicial discretion only considered the evidence presented by Michael Schiavo. He disregarded all evidence that the Schindlers wanted to present.

I hate to say it, but Terri Schiavo was railroaded.

[OurDubya]

If I am correct there has never been any brain scans of terry schiavo.


There most definitely have been a number of CT scans done, but I can't seem to find proof that those particular pics posted here are legit. They may be or may not. They do seem consistent with what the neurologists are saying, though. CT scans have been submitted as court documents so it's not unreasonable that they have gotten around. Newspapers have certainly had access to them.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/11213061.htm

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

No new evidence was presented. It wasn't allowed. All judges ruling on the case relied only one Judge Greer's findings. The Schindlers have been trying to get a trial de novo, literally a new trial so they could present the new evidence. Unfortunately, de novo motions are made in front of the same judge who had the trial initially. So it's not surprising the motion was denied.

Judge Greer did nothing wrong and that's what all the judges said. The rightness or wrongness of his rulings was never addressed, shouldn't be addressed.

What happened is that Judge Greer using judicial discretion only considered the evidence presented by Michael Schiavo. He disregarded all evidence that the Schindlers wanted to present.

I hate to say it, but Terri Schiavo was railroaded.

Kathy, how RIGHT you ARE!

braindea...I mean brainshrub provided a link to a place where the court documents (Judge Greer) can be found (see his/her/it's post above). I just downloaded and read the first one on the "timeline". There are SO many problems with this Judge's initial decision, it's practically laughable!

I was absolutely right . . . I am vindicated. This Judge relied SOLELY on the words of Michael, his brother and his wife to justify the murder of Terri Schiavo. When you read through it, there is SOOOOOOOOO much reasonable doubt, NOT to mention his HEAVY reliance on heresay evidence, that it turns my stomach.

Terri wasn't railroaded, though . . . . she was purposefully murdered (or, soon will be, anyway, because it doesn't appear she will be saved).

[Rink]

Things like brain scans are medical records hence due to the Medical privacy act you would not see terry schiavo's brain scans on the net.

[tacitus]

Both are MRI scans, not CT. The one in blue is from a totally different region of the skull, not the same slice as the one from the 'healthy' brain. The photos are probably bogus, given the fact that laws will not allow any medical records to be released without family permission.

[Warlady]

OurDubya do you know how to read a CAT scan?

[OurDubya]

OurDubya do you know how to read a CAT scan?

Not in a medical sense, though I am familiar with the test method. No, I just reported what I knew, which is what can be found in the news. CT scans (or CAT scans) indeed have been done, and it is a matter of public record that such scans have been submitted as court documents, and a number of newspapers have had access to them, or at least have reported that they've had access to them.

Regarding the picture posted to this thread, the image on the right is most definitely a CT scan. It might be confused for an MRI diffusion scan on first glance, but its clear that it is a CT scan. CT scans use x-rays, thus the brain case shows up as bright white. MRI goes through bone and so the brain case shows up as light gray to dark gray or even almost black (color varies with MRI intensity/RF as well). MRI scans would also show better resolution and detail than this CT scan. The picture on the left also appears to be a color enhanced CT scan.

You can find many such examples of brain CT scans on the web in various medical websites. Here is one (http://tuftsneurology.org/training/presentations/1_98/neuroradiology.html) which shows you the difference between an MRI and CT scan. But like I already said, we don't know where these pics came from. We don't know if these are legit or not.

[Incident_command]

you know about this:

http://www.thoughtcrimes.org/mt/images/schiavo_ct_scan.jpg



So this is a fake if i ever saw it and the blue one can be made by ANYONE with a graphics program.
Shrub quit posting fake images and attributing them to someone that they arent of.

NO No No Rink you dont get it. This week we were taught by the courts that hearsay is valid evidence. So then when BS says these are her CT scans we have to believe him!

[MichaelS]

No new evidence was presented. It wasn't allowed. All judges ruling on the case relied only one Judge Greer's findings. The Schindlers have been trying to get a trial de novo, literally a new trial so they could present the new evidence. Unfortunately, de novo motions are made in front of the same judge who had the trial initially. So it's not surprising the motion was denied.

Judge Greer did nothing wrong and that's what all the judges said. The rightness or wrongness of his rulings was never addressed, shouldn't be addressed.

What happened is that Judge Greer using judicial discretion only considered the evidence presented by Michael Schiavo. He disregarded all evidence that the Schindlers wanted to present.

I hate to say it, but Terri Schiavo was railroaded.

New evidence was indeed allowed at the federal circuit court. However, David Gibbs, counsel for the Schindlers, opted to reference the state proceedings when filing the complaints of the case.

The complaints brought by Gibbs on behalf of the Schindlers, as referenced in Judge Whittemore's initial ruling (http://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/al-arian/Opinions/Schiavo-v-Schiavo-OrderDenyingTRO.pdf), were/are as follows:



Count 1 - Violation of 14th amendent due process right to a fair and impartial trial

In count 1, the plaintiffs alleged that Judge Greer's performance as "health care surrogate" and "impartial judge" served as a conflict of interest.



Count 2 - Violation of 14th amendment procedural due process rights

In count 2, the plaintiffs alleged Terri's 14th amendment rights were violated by Judge Greer's (1) failure to appoint a guardian ad litem, (2) failure to appoint independent counsel for Terri, and (3) failure of "access to court" in failing to visit Terri.



Count 3 - Violation of 14th amendment right to equal protection of the law

Count 3 once again refers to activities of the state courts.



Counts 4 and 5 - Violation of religious land use and institutionalized persons act (RLUIPA) and Violation of 1st amendment free exercise of religion clause

Counts 4 and 5 are related to an alleged violation of Terri's exercise of reiligion with the state court's order to remove the feeding tube.
As you can see, all five counts are directly related to prior proceedings at the state level. Rather than ignoring the state proceedings and bringing counts had those prior proceedings never existed, as was his option, the counsel of the Schindlers opted to focus solely on those prior proceedings.

I covered more on this in another thread (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=20351).

[Warlady]

I'm not convinced that the Schindler's lawyer is competent. I wish he had been representing Terri instead of her parents.

[Warlady]

OurDubya, thanks for answering my question. So no you do not know how to read a CAT scan. I'm not even sure what your point is. Are you FOR starving a person to death?

[OurDubya]

OurDubya, thanks for answering my question. So no you do not know how to read a CAT scan.


No, actually I do, but I'm not qualified to make medical diagnoses from them. I'm not a doctor (well, not a medical one at least). I dealt quite a bit with CT in grad school. CT is just x-rays, and that a black spot indicates a lack of brain tissue is a no-brainer (pardon the expression). Brain tissue comes back gray in x-rays.

On that basis, the supplied pic was consistent with the neurologists reports. Beyond that I don't claim any expertise in medical diagnoses from CT scans. Note again that this doesn't mean this is necessarily Schiavo's CT scan.


I'm not even sure what your point is. Are you FOR starving a person to death?

Boy, that sure came out of left field! Nothing I've said has been even remotedly connected to the pros/cons of starving a person to death. How bizarre.

And you missed the point as well. Well, then I guess a review is in order:

Rink said that she suspected that no brain scans were done on Schiavo.

I replied and said no, we know there have been scans, since we have the neurologists' reports and the scans have been submitted to the court as well.

[Melz]

I think that WL just wants to know (beyond your medical knowledge of course) if you support the killing of Terri or not, as this is a Terri Schiavo forum you typed in. And we are discussing her murder.

*edited* because heck, that sounded a bit cold. This is almost numbing me, the whole taking of the life of Terri has turned me into something I am not. By avoiding getting over-emotional, I am sounding like some detached non-human when I type something. I am sorry if I sounded that way.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

There are just too many instances in medical history of someone with an injury that should have made them a vegetable -- but did not;...

:unsmile: Andrew Jackson died from a bullet that had lodged in his head during a duël. The duël transpired before he became president.

[OurDubya]

I think that WL just wants to know (beyond your medical knowledge of course) if you support the killing of Terri or not, as this is a Terri Schiavo forum you typed in. And we are discussing her murder.

Hi Melz,

Okay... though since it had nothing to do with anything I was saying, it seemed a strange question to ask me in response. This is not an easy issue to come down hard on either side of, for me. If I was her father or mother, I wouldn't want to let her go either. If her parents want to support her, then I don't see why she must die. However, if she does die, it's my viewpoint that it is only her body that is dying, as everything that made her who she is has died a long time ago. It's my opinion that if there is a heaven that awaits us, Terri is already there.

That's just my viewpoint, not intended as an argument.