Question for bloodthirsty fanatics

[S-T]

Barring a miracle, Terri Schiavo will be dead within a week. So here is my question to those who favor killing her by starvation and dehydration:

Would you, or would you not, support killing Terri quickly by blowing her brains out with a .357 Magnum?

If that's too messy, what about injecting her with cyanide?

How about transporting her to the state pen and putting her in the gas chamber?

If you truly support having Terri's life ended because she is a "vegetable", why does the method of killing have to take two weeks?

Tell me, what is the difference between a quick death via a bullet and a slow death via starvation and dehydration? Why is removing her feeding tube preferable to cyanide?

[PrezLeefun]

S-T that is ridiculous. I am in favor of giving her morphine. not starving her death. No one wants the poor woman to be in pain, so i say let her go comfortably. I along with many others think the way she is dying is wrong and inhumane, but is it really humane to let her go living like this? I dont think so.

[shawnwood]

S-T that is ridiculous. I am in favor of giving her morphine. not starving her death. No one wants the poor woman to be in pain, so i say let her go comfortably. I along with many others think the way she is dying is wrong and inhumane, but is it really humane to let her go living like this? I dont think so.

If she was a vegetable, which she is not, she would feel no pain anyway.

[UnkHiram]

PRez

If you are correct and Terri is in pain, then she is not in a vegatative state and the justification for murdering her is false.

[PrezLeefun]

this is stupid! would you want to live like that. would you want to be a burden on your family? she has suffered enough, spiritualy. let her go with God , she wont be incapacitated with him.

[Warlady]

Prez, there was a woman who was in a coma for 20 years who recently regained consciousness. There was a woman on Fox news this morning who had a stroke a few years ago and because her husband fought FOR her rehabilitation she can now walk and speak as good as you or I. She was also on a resperator for over a year. What exactly are you doing? Playing God? That is not our role. We should never give up on our loved ones. Never.

[PrezLeefun]

No the doctors and her family are playing God by keeping her alive when she has no quality of life.

[UnkHiram]

Prez

Who are you (or I) to decide what her quality of life should be? That is to be completely honest entirely irrelevant to the case. Either she is in a vegatative state or she is not. If she is not, pulling the feeding tube is murder -- pure and simple.

[Warlady]

Prez, there are literally millions of humans around the globe who have a less than quality life. Are we to just kill them all off? Terri is not terminally ill. She wasn't suffering until they pulled her food and water. That is a HORRIFIC way to die. This is judicial homicide. I can't believe ANYONE would sanction this. Karen Ann Quinlan was the first case I remember like this. She was being kept alive by a resperator. Her family went to court to have the vent removed. They got their wish and she didn't die when the doctors removed her breathing tube. Her family never once asked that her feeding tubes be removed to kill her. That is the difference. She never regained consciousness but they didn't believe in starving her to death. They said once she was off the vent she acted like she was much more comfortable and she lived a long life without being murdered. I cannot believe anyone would agree to starve someone to death. That is the most cruel way to kill an animal much less a human being.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

No the doctors and her family are playing God by keeping her alive when she has no quality of life.

Prez, first of all, each and every American citizen enjoys three "unalienable" rights, acknolwedged and recognized from the founding of this country in the DoI (Declaration of Independence). Inalienable means, the right is to the individual specifically; it is not transferable (to another to make decisions for, unless WE give it), not revokable (we cannot take the right away, because we didn't give it -- God did, the CREATOR), and you cannot terminate it (again, becuase it is not man-granted, but God-granted). The other two "unalienable" rights deal with HOW we live, not what life IS, because the "right to life" is one specific thing . . . the right to exist, and to continue to further exist.

So now we get back to Terri's wishes. We do not know what they are. Hearsay, which others have asserted CANNOT be used by those on the side of Terri's life, by that standard, then CANNOT be used as justification to end Terri's life, i.e. just because her husband, his brother and wife, SAY that Terri expressed a wish NOT to have her life extended in extraordinary measures, doesn't mean it carries any weight. It is, after all, STILL hearsay.

Terri may very well HAVE an opinion on this, we don't know it, and have no way OF knowing it. Because of this, there is NO justifcation whatsoever for court mandated starvation and dehydration. She has a "right to life," and if we MUST consider all that is presented by Michael Schiavo, we STILL have to seek a solution that does the LEAST amount of harm, and at the VERY LEAST does NO irreparable harm -- death cannot be undone.

This is about Terri's right -- her right ALONE -- to live. Whether you AGREE with her "quality of life," or even if you believe her to have NO quality of life, is irrelevant. It's NOT your decision to make . . . nor mine, nor even the judiciary's. An unalienable right is granted by GOD, not man(kind).

There is no REASON to be even MAKING this decision. She could very well continue existing as she was, bothering no one, harming no one, but bringing joy and love to the ones who love her -- her parents and other family members. She was not in immediacy of dying, nor was she hooked up to a respirator (working in place of he lungs), a heart pump (working in place of her heart), or catheter (working in place of her urinary tract, or colostomy bag (working in place of her bowels). The ONLY thing she required, is what each and every one of us require as a basic human need -- food and water.

[shawnwood]

No the doctors and her family are playing God by keeping her alive when she has no quality of life.

So should we eliminate all the mentally handicapped? What about those born who can't walk? Christopher Reeve could not breathe without a respirator, should we have killed him?

Her husband has blocked her from getting any type of therapy which would increase her quality of life dramatically.

[S-T]

NO ONE ANSWERED MY QUESTION.

I hear over and over again how we should let Terri Schiavo die, that we should let nature take its' course.

So why not speed it up? Why does she have to be starved and dehydrated to death? If you were about to die, would you rather die slowly over two weeks from dehydration, or would you rather it be over quickly via a bullet to the head?

For the sake of argument, let's assume that Terri Schiavo never wanted to live like this. Let her die, because making her live like this is cruel. So why starvation and dehydration? Why choose a method that wil take two weeks? A bullet would be faster and a lot more humane.

[Warlady]

HS, I sure wish you were Terri's lawyer. She might not be in this mess if you were.

[Rink]

S-T your idea will be the next proposed thing, once terry dies the left will wring their hands and say Gee that just was too miserable and too long a way to die, lets just bring in a more humane way to end their miserable existence, lets just give them an injection and let them go peacefully.

THAT is next my friend!!

[S-T]

I know, Rink. That's why I'm exposing the bloodthirsty fanatics for what they are.

"Letting nature take its course" would not be acceptable if Terri were a dog. If the Animal Shelter decided to put a dog down by starvation and dehydration, someone would be in jail.

So, again, if we're REALLY looking our for what is best for Terri Schiavo, why starvation & dehydration? Why not just end it with a bullet to the head?

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

NO ONE ANSWERED MY QUESTION.

So why starvation and dehydration? Why choose a method that wil take two weeks? A bullet would be faster and a lot more humane.

Because assisted suicide is illegal, physician assisted or otherwise, and rightly so.

I have already predicted, when this is all over, said and done, the ACLU and pro--death'ers will provide documentation (film, written, other), that they were WRONG about starvation and dehydration being "painless and humane," and will then USE this case to push for "humane" physician assisted suicide by lethal injection or other similarly non-painful means.

Starvation and dehydration are being considered "natural" processes for the purpose of providing the means to her death. No reference to the fact that EVERYONE needs food and water to live -- but the fact that she requires a feeding tube to provide the sustanence. Since a feeding tube isn't a "natural organ" or "natural conveyance" it is considered "life support" and therefore can be withheld to induce death.

[Rink]

I know, Rink. That's why I'm exposing the bloodthirsty fanatics for what they are.

"Letting nature take its course" would not be acceptable if Terri were a dog. If the Animal Shelter decided to put a dog down by starvation and dehydration, someone would be in jail.

So, again, if we're REALLY looking our for what is best for Terri Schiavo, why starvation & dehydration? Why not just end it with a bullet to the head?

Starvation also takes too long to be truly 'humane' and they know it.

[S-T]

Because assisted suicide is illegal, physician assisted or otherwise, and rightly so. Let's put the law aside for a moment.

Let's assume that we can do whatever is "best" for Terri Schiavo.

Isn't a bullet more humane than starvation and dehydration?

As to your prediction, I fear you are right.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Let's put the law aside for a moment.

Let's assume that we can do whatever is "best" for Terri Schiavo.

Isn't a bullet more humane than starvation and dehydration?

As to your prediction, I fear you are right.

Yes, a bullet is more humane than starvation/dehydration, a lethal injection is more human than a bullet, and dying from old age is more human than either the two.

Besides, the first two aren't warranted, because she is NOT, or at least was not at the time the tubes were withdrawn, facing imminent immediate death.

[Warlady]

I said a week ago it would be more humane to just give her a lethal injection. Now I just hope God calls her home quickly. I believe the world and our nation is suffering more than Terri at this point. I believe she is beyond suffering now. I doubt she feels much of anything at this point.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Tell me, what is the difference between a quick death via a bullet and a slow death via starvation and dehydration? Why is removing her feeding tube preferable to cyanide?

:unsmile: By allowing her to starve, they think they can absolve themselves of guilt, by blaming it on nature, or God.

[Kathy29]

this is stupid! would you want to live like that. would you want to be a burden on your family? she has suffered enough, spiritualy. let her go with God , she wont be incapacitated with him.

You could say the same about anyone who is disabled. Would YOU want to be blind, deaf or crippled? No, of course not these are not states preferable to normalcy. Should all the blind, deaf and crippled be put to death, humanely of course?

The same goes for being a burden on the family. I knew a family that had a servely autistic child who was considered a joy in their lives. I know a family right now that has a daughter born without a brain stem. She is a vegetable, and her family in no way considers her a burden, but the light of their lives. She's 22 and has never had a cognitive thought in her life. But she's not a burden.

Are you now setting yourself up to decide who is a burden and who is not? Should this be the province of the court system, to decide who is a burden to their families and who is not? How would you explain to Mrs. Schindler that their daughter is really a burden and they will be better off with her dead?

What would you say, really, that would convince her that Terri is a burden?

[DesertFox]

Starvation isn't so bad; it's the dehydration that's horrible.

I'm with S-T. Rather than inflict such agony on a defenseless person, I think she should be publicly drawn and quartered so that everyone can see that it's a human being we're subjecting to this degradation.

If we're going to murder people legally, it should be made a public spectacle so that we can't kid ourselves about our true motives, or about what we're "really" doing.

[PrezLeefun]

Bash me if you will but i stand by what i said, there is a better way to let her die, but its time to let her die.

[Warlady]

Well said Kathy.

Kitten you are correct except for the morphine. It doesn't speed up the heart. It slows the resperations and causes death in overdose and I believe that is what Prez was referring to.

[DesertFox]

You are hereby officially bashed, Prez.

Just be sure you understand what you're saying. You said, "It's time to let her die." She isn't being allowed to die, but is being killed by being refused sustenance. The same thing could happen to you. A judge could order food and water withheld from you because he decided you have no quality of life. Doesn't matter what you think or don't think; he knows better.

[PrezLeefun]

God knows better, and if she is meant to live, then she will.

[Peachdiane]

A bullet? Shoot! Clubbing her upside the head to death would be more humane than this starvation and dehydration. :flame:

I just get IRATE when people (not just on this board - in real life too) seem to think that just because a person has severe disabilities, or has a terminal disease or whatever, that their life is horrid and has no value. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

[Kathy29]

God knows better, and if she is meant to live, then she will.

Not without food and water, just the same as everyone else.

[DesertFox]

Kathy said it right: Without food and water, she will DIE. And it won't be God's will, but the will of Schiavo and Greer.

[PrezLeefun]

You really think the way she has been living for the last fifteen years is living?

[Longhorn_Platinum]

You really think the way she has been living for the last fifteen years is living?

:unsmile: That's her decision, not ours.

[PrezLeefun]

No its not her decision, she hasnt said anything for fifteen years.

[DesertFox]

You really think the way she has been living for the last fifteen years is living? You gonna decide that for somebody else, Prez? There are people on this planet -- whole gigantic swarms of them -- who would trade places with YOU in a heart beat. There are people who would say of Bill Gates' life, "You really think that's living?"

About ten years ago a black writer named Jill somebody wrote a savage column about her imprisonment in racist America. At the time she was earning about 100k a year, living in a fashionable apartment and driving a BMW, all of which in her column became "illusions of the American dream." In time she quit journalism and I don't know what happened to her after that, though she's still around somewhere.

Then there's the famous poem about Richard Cory, whom everyone admired and envired. Looks, money, talent, athletic ability, the dude had it all. And one day Richard Cory put a bullet in his own brain.

Were it not so clear that Michael Schiavo is up to no good, I would never have given much thought to this case.

[Warlady]

You're wrong Prez, she can talk. Her nurses have testified that she can say "Mommie" and "pain" just to name two words. Had she had rehabilitation and speech therapy there is no telling what she could say by now but her husband cut off all of her rehabilitation once he got his money...or I should say HER money the jury awarded for her care and rehabilitation.

[Peachdiane]

Prez does a Downs Syndrome child have the same quality of life as a child who is not? Many disabled people would say they do have quality of life. The Para-Olympics is an example of this. Those who are parents of Downs Syndrome children or children with disabilities or terminal illnesses would tell you how much love these children have and how giving they are.

How about Stephen Hawking? Does he have no quality of life either? I'm just wondering where you draw the line....

[nene]

Quality of life is relative and definable only by you, as it applies to you. There are many people of sound mind and body, that posses great wealth, yet miserably contemplate suicide. While there are others, caught in desperate fight for survival, who struggle through their horrific life for a chance at tomorrow.

[PrezLeefun]

A bullet? Shoot! Clubbing her upside the head to death would be more humane than this starvation and dehydration. :flame:

I just get IRATE when people (not just on this board - in real life too) seem to think that just because a person has severe disabilities, or has a terminal disease or whatever, that their life is horrid and has no value. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Peach i am not speaking of all disabled people. However this woman in particular is not going to recover or have any real communication. She cannot legally do anything for herself. she is not aware of her surroundings. she has been dead for 15 years. It time to let her die. it is wrong and inhumane to have her live in such a way. I know i would not want that type of life. and 72% of the counrty agrees with me.

i'm done on this thread. its too hard to talk of person who is being forced to suffer the way she is.

[Wolfcounsel]

300 cubic centimeters of potassium chloride into her heart is more humane than what the butcher as*holes in the black robes have condemned her to. I hope that each and every as*hole who wants Terri murdered receives a debilitating stroke from which there is no recovery, yet they remain conscious.

[Peachdiane]

Peach i am not speaking of all disabled people. However this woman in particular is not going to recover or have any real communication. She cannot legally do anything for herself. she is not aware of her surroundings. she has been dead for 15 years. It time to let her die. it is wrong and inhumane to have her live in such a way. I know i would not want that type of life. and 72% of the counrty agrees with me.

i'm done on this thread. its too hard to talk of person who is being forced to suffer the way she is.

Ok I understand you say you are done. But I just want to point out that without extensive testing we have no way of knowing whether she'd have recovered. And in this affidavit (http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/Affidavit.pdf) from a neurologist, he states she was very much aware of her surroundings.

[Maggie_T]

Barring a miracle, Terri Schiavo will be dead within a week. So here is my question to those who favor killing her by starvation and dehydration:

Would you, or would you not, support killing Terri quickly by blowing her brains out with a .357 Magnum?

If that's too messy, what about injecting her with cyanide?

How about transporting her to the state pen and putting her in the gas chamber?

If you truly support having Terri's life ended because she is a "vegetable", why does the method of killing have to take two weeks?

Tell me, what is the difference between a quick death via a bullet and a slow death via starvation and dehydration? Why is removing her feeding tube preferable to cyanide?


You're absolutely right, my friend. I'll tell you why the bloodthirsty ones prefer a slow, painful death for this poor woman rather than a merciful bullet: because they consider the slow, painful death to be "nature's course" and so they can feel that they are not the ones demanding her death. It's nature that's killing her, don't you know. Thus, the bloodthirsty ones can believe that they have nothing to do with it, and even consider themselves "compassionate."

Those who piously demand that this poor woman be put out of what they imperiously decided is "her misery" are too hypocritical, too Pharisiacal, to admit that they consider invalids of every sort "a burden", to be disposed of as if they were yesterday's newspaper. And so, they bleat and moan about "quality of life." Uh-huh. Their quality of life is what really worries them, make no mistake. The thought that they might be "saddled" with caring for someone who cannot do it him/herself is the "quality of life" they don't want to be burdened with.

There, I said it. Let the caterwauling being.

[Maggie_T]

No the doctors and her family are playing God by keeping her alive when she has no quality of life.

Prez, do yourself a favor and stop using that lame excuse about "quality of life." Nobody knows what Terri is feeling. For all we know, she may be silently begging for her life. Than again, she may not, but since - I repeat - we don't know, I say let's err on the side of caution.

It's very easy to heroically say "I don't want to be a burden. Let me die," while you are enjoying good health.

But be careful what you wish for, Prez. You may actually get it, and it may not turn to be what you thought you bargained for.

[Suzie]

I personally would rather be shot than starved to death. I hope I never have to make that choice. And I hope if I am not able to make it and they loose my living will I hope the choice won't be made to starve me. Thankfully my husband has never abused me in life so I have no reason to fear him doing it if I am nearing death. It's a shame we can't say the same for Terri. No one knows how she felt about a "feeding tube" because even if she said she didn't want to be on life support, it doesn't matter in this case because food isn't life support. This whole mess sickens me, people with disabled family members must be living in great fear right now. Thankfully my family member in this condition has gone on to be with GOD, he was born with severe brain damage but he lived until GOD called him home. His mother loved him too, heaven help Terri's mother I can't even imagine what this must be like for her. The woman who gave her the first taste of food is now helpless to do so now. She would have to think about feeding her as a child and the torment must be unbearable. If you have a child, take a moment and think about how important feeding them has been in their development. The smiles while nursing, first bites, now imagine those images in this woman's mind as she watches that face STARVE TO DEATH. Now think how much more sickening this is when you consider how many of these idiots on the news see no problem with doing this to Terri's Mom, and where they stood on psychological torture of TERRORISTS. This woman has done nothing, and I can't even begin to imagine a worse torment for a mother.

[Wolfcounsel]

Yep. The same piece of sh*t whiners who crapped their pants when terrorists were having their peepees laughed at are the same ones who are salivating at their "mercy killing" victory.

[DesertFox]

Do we really need to ask Terri if extreme thirst hurts? or if starving to death is fun?

We treat animals with more compassion.

[Warlady]

In fact, you go to jail if you withhold food from an animal.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

I know i would not want that type of life. and 72% of the counrty agrees with me.

:unsmile: I'm gonna be real polite here. You should never justify, or should I say, "rationalize", your point of view by claiming that x% of the population agrees with you. Wrong is still wrong, even if everybody else is doing it.

[Suzie]

I kinda like the fact that those who are on the side of my point of view includes the pope and Billy Graham.

Their side, lets see, has nearly every liberal judge in the country. You know those abortion luvin, gay marriage pushing, Judges. And that's just a fraction of that percentage. Their support gets worse the more you sift out.

Yep I am very happy on this side of line for sure.

[Warlady]

Here here Suzie & Moo!! Me too. I'm proud to be in the moral minority. Prez you are entitled to your opinion but I hope you aren't basing it on mob rule.

[Apollo5600]

I am not entirely sure we are the minority, seeing as how I keep hearing from time to time the poll questions were fixed, on Fox they even criticized their own Poll concerning the wording.

Though I will examine it myself later, keep in mind Bush rather than Kerry, is President. Also keep in mind, ignorance of the facts (thanks to a Death's Head MSM) might also be the reason for it.

[Rink]

I kinda wonder if this isnt the generation of cowards, when life gets tough, they run and say i dont wanna endure it!

They'd rather off themselves than put up with the realities that life gives, they only want it one-sided Only, pleasant, and no pain.

To me this from the libs is a generation of chicken-shits who dont want anything other than their hedonistic 'pleasure' and when things get tough and life starts getting painful they run like the yellow bellied idiots they truly are.

God never said life was gonna be easy, in fact it's not Meant to be easy, if life was easy and all pleasure and no pain then mankind would have nothing to live for.

Death is never easy either, life, death and suffering are all interconnected inextricably, and with injuries, diseases and birth defects and such pain and suffering comes from it.

Pain and suffering is a part of LIFE, if we didnt have that life would be meaningless.

Doesnt mean we should enjoy pain and suffering it just means its a part and parcel of life on both ends.

[S-T]

God knows better, and if she is meant to live, then she will. Oh, puh-leeze.

OK, Let's put you in a rocketship and send it straight for the massive nuclear furnace that we call "the sun". If it is God's will that you live, you will survive the heat, pressure and radiation.

[Warlady]

E.D. Hill on Fox and Friends this morning said that her Father told her he never wanted to be kept alive by artificial means. Of course food and water is not artificial means but she said then he got cancer and nearing the end of his life he changed his mind and did want to be kept alive for as long as possible. My Mother always said the same thing but when push came to shove and she needed to be put on a respirator to keep her alive I asked her if she wanted it and she shook her head yes. I had power of attorney over her and I respected her wishes. I don't believe a spouse who has violated their wedding vows should have custody over their spouse. That is obsurd. I don't know anyone who would want to be starved to death.

[S-T]

Prez does a Downs Syndrome child have the same quality of life as a child who is not? Apparently not. Remember Baby Doe?

Over two decades ago, a baby boy was starved and dehydrated to death (just like Terri) because he had Down's Syndrome. All with the approval of our corrupt legal system.

[DesertFox]

Prez is 17 and dumb in the way of the young. She believes in Christ. She hasn't lived long enough to have any real sense about this thing, and didn't live thru the 32 years since Roe that led up to this.

[DesertFox]

We didn't. You be right.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I have to tell you, the points that really stick in my craw are these:

How can a judge use heresay evidence to credibly and substantially establish Terri's wishes?

Just because someone says they would not want to be kept alive on machines (for the moment, and for the point of this question, accepting the premise that she did express such a desire), doesn't mean they would want to be starved and dehydrated to death. I would grant that the majority of people (when this is EXPLAINED to them, the condition and manner of her "medical equipment" -- feeding and hydration tubes) would NOT consider them to be artificial life support(ing equipment).

In all other cases of law, unless reasonable doubt can be eliminated, rule always goes to the point of (for lack of a better word) innocence (the old "innocent-until-proven-guilty" tack). In this case, a judge ruled that upon review of the appeal, it wouldn't stand a chance in his courtroom, so was cast out before a proper hearing on the matter. How can this be? One cannot PREDICT the outcome before knowing all the facts. You cannot throw something out, when you've but only glanced at it.

And finally, it is OBVIOUS there are SERIOUS reservations, doubts, confusion, and misunderstandings swirling in every direction regarding this case. THAT ALONE should warrant a separate, independent review by someone (judge) totally unrelated to any of the events that have transpired thus far. That is the ONLY logical, reasonable solution.

To run towards an irreparable solution, with SOOOOOOOOOOOOO much doubt hanging over the entire thing, seems absolutely ludicrous to me.

[Rink]

One thing magnumom I got this from another site, but it may be telling in this dillemma:


It was Maria Esperanza, the famous and Church-approved Catholic mystic, who predicted that the death of an innocent person would herald a long-expected step-up in purification.


My question would have been to maria esperanza was, what is this 'purification' and why does it have to start with the death of an innocent?

I think this is truly a test of America's moral fiber, and the life of one woman is that test upon whether or not we as a nation be judged by our actions concerning this innocent woman.

God's wrath surely will be poured out upon these people and the nation for their majority support of this action against this innocent woman.

As i take into account the words of Moses in that old classical movie by Cecil B. Demille "He who will not live by the Law, shall die by the Law"

In effect since these 'judges' who are given the right and power to judge over us cannot live by God's basic laws, then they will be Judged and condemned by God's laws, the Blood of Christ cemented God's Laws and Commandments and his covenant, with His people and the rest of the world, and it will be Christ's blood that will condemn such as these who would do such wickedness in this day and age where you would think they would know better.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Okay I thought of a few more questions nagging at me about this case:

If we assume Terri wouldn't want to be kept alive with life support (and I do NOT, and will NOT ever grant that the basic human needs of food and water ARE "life support"), we can also reasonably assume the reason to be because, as so many have shared similar opinions and stressed, she wouldn't want to suffer, be in pain, or physical torment, correct?

The assertion was made that in essence, Terri is "brain dead" for all intents and purposes, if that is ALSO the case, and, as has also been "shared", she feels no pain, suffers no torment, then WHY if her body functions as does any other's biological functions, what reason is there to starve and dehydrate her to death -- to put her out of her suffering, torment . . . she's in none, remember? And furthermore, doesn't the state of starvation and dehydration more aptly fit the description of "suffering and torment" than does simply existing? If merely LIVING is tortorous (in the state she was in), how can "starvation and dire thirst" be anything less? AND, if Terri was in threat of imminent death, and the "life support" (food and water) was the only thing keeping her alive/extending her life, why is it taking so long to die? I thought she was in the IMMEDIATE, IMMINENT death-stage, i.e. if you remove the respirator from one whose lungs do not function at all, they die within minutes, NOT days, and Terri is going on more than a week now. Isn't this PROOF that she wants to live? It most certainly is proof that her BODY does.

Why can't people understand this? I just keep shaking my head in confusion, sadness, and anger over this case. You know, I USED to be able to stay pretty level headed when addressing pro-liberal opponents, but with this, I'm finding it harder and harder to keep my equilibrium.

[Maggie_T]

I kinda wonder if this isnt the generation of cowards, when life gets tough, they run and say i dont wanna endure it!

They'd rather off themselves than put up with the realities that life gives, they only want it one-sided Only, pleasant, and no pain.

To me this from the libs is a generation of chicken-shits who dont want anything other than their hedonistic 'pleasure' and when things get tough and life starts getting painful they run like the yellow bellied idiots they truly are.

God never said life was gonna be easy, in fact it's not Meant to be easy, if life was easy and all pleasure and no pain then mankind would have nothing to live for.

Death is never easy either, life, death and suffering are all interconnected inextricably, and with injuries, diseases and birth defects and such pain and suffering comes from it.

Pain and suffering is a part of LIFE, if we didnt have that life would be meaningless.

Doesnt mean we should enjoy pain and suffering it just means its a part and parcel of life on both ends.


Exactly the point I tried to make earlier on in this thread. Thank you for making my case, Rink. :claps:

[Rink]

Brenda, the reason why Judge Greer wont listen or look at the evidence is because he does not want any probe into his activities, as if there were ever one his corruption would be exposed, and allowing any 'investigation' into terry schiavo would do just that, show his corruption for what it is.

[tacitus]

Here you go Rink Maria Ezperanza (http://www.crystalinks.com/maria.html)

Interesting reading.

[Rink]

Thanks Tac.