posted
Let's fight to keep Terri Schiavo staring at the ceiling in a vegetative state for another 30 years or so, costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands dollars a year in medical expenses, while she screams inside, "Oh God! Please let me die."
The Republicans are pumping up their "right to life" base by doing legislative grandstanding, starting with Jeb Bush in Florida, and ending with George Bush and the congress.
The nutty right to lifers are far out in this one.
There are hundreds of these cases every day where the life support is routinely withdrawn.
The obscenity of the Terri Schiavo case is that it has gone on for 15 years or so, and should have ended before it got started.
Dying without food is not painful - the brain releases endorphins that make dying pleasant. People who have gone on fasts for weeks, then later started eating to save their life, report that they soon lose all appetite for food, and it was a pleasant experience as the fast lengthened.
Once again objective and realistic thinking is over-ruled by emotional subjectivity.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness.
IP: Logged |
posted
i think we are seeing how the "conservatives" are going to "undo" themselves just as the "liberals" did with the assault weapon ban and the healthcare fiasco
.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Forthose that thing dying without food is pleasant, I suggest yo uo it and see how pleasant it is. Art...you stated we all gravitate to pleasure so if dying without food and water is so pleasant, i dont understand why we all dont do it since it is so pleasant. It is alarming and shocking to say "Terry" should die. It is not for anyone to decide but terry. She is alive and willing to live. If she didnt want to live, she would die. She has a strong will to live. Her husband is remarried and wants to kill her.
His motive is so strong that I question why it is so strong. It conflicts wiht those tha love Terry (parents and siblings)
Why does he care to kill her so much? If he loved her so much, then he would be by her side. If my husband was in that condition, I would be there...not remarried and wanting him dead.
No one knows what terry wishes are but SHE is alive...becasuse she wants to be.
Her husband wants her dead for financual or possibly he had somehting to do with this strategy.
I am amazed so many cant see the trnasperancey of his evil.
Her family will care for her and yet he wants her dead and the strength of his fighting is alarming.
Art..I suggest you satarve yourself and see how pleasant it is before you make such stupid statements.
IP: Logged |
posted
What I see is the courts makingdecisions and that is not their power. Courts should interpret law and florida courts have wrongly ruled in favor of a husband that no longer is married to her. His interest is to kill her. Why????????
But, the congress gets invloved because it is congress that makes the laws and not the courts.. the courts should enforce what congress wants. sometimes, it is not clear why this issue is getting the attention.
IP: Logged |
posted
Larry King had a interesting interview on CNN last night, with Terri's husband and lawyer, and Terri's parents. Look for it as it may be repeated.
Terri is unable to communicate except at a simple conditioned response level of reaction to others that is not communicative of her thinking. Her thinking is non-existent.
Terri is in a persistent vegatative state and her chances of improving from this are nil. She will always remain in an unconscious reflexive state.
Her wishes before her CVA in 1990, as can be determined, was that, if something like this ever happened to her, she would not want to be kept alive.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness.
IP: Logged |
posted
I think a living will dictates action. In cases where no will, then I support a right to LIFE.
Aslo, her condition is questionable?? Is she in a vegetative state?
In this case, no living will but a man saying she wants to die. and he fighting so strong to kill her. Why dont he kill his current common law wife? I think he should step back and have no say since he is no longer her husband. He has not stood by her. I am surprised that HE has any rights to her . He is married to another woman. It is so apparent to me that he want s her dead for selfish reasons and possiblt did this to her.
I may not want to be in a vegetative state but weithout a will, i want soemone to let me live. I think we are creators so if I was kept alive and nl longer had will to live, i would die.
terry is choosing life. she lives. When we no longer have a will to live, we die. She maybe trying to stay alive long enufff so that truth comes out.
IP: Logged |
posted
Terry is choosing life by living. So, yes I support life.
Who are we to sat otherwise? And, who is HE to represent terry when he no longer is her husband? I am surprised courts let him have influence since he is not her husband.
IP: Logged |
posted
I am saying he may have something to do with it.
Why is he fighting so hard to kill her? The family is willing to care for her.
I am not saying he is guilty. I am saying he may be. Where so I get that? How he is fighting to kill her. and amny news commentators have also questioned his motive??
posted
Like i said before, without a living will, I support right to life.
I may choose to die...but Terry doesnt have a living will and I think her right to life overrides her husband trying to kill her. Her family has a say but not him..he is married to another woman and has 2 kids with her.
IP: Logged |
posted
i don't like the starving her thing, i also don't like he said she said in courts, I dont like politicians getting involved, i don't like judges overstepping their bounds. I find this one tough. I'm not into the for life agenda, if her heart was being pumped electronically i'd flick the switch. but no food for you, is kind of rough.
the husband was awarded millions in a malpractice suit, taxpayer money shouldn't be being spent to feed her.
congress w/the pres. has the right to overrule the judges its not a new precedent, its the checks and balances of the constitution, no big deal.
if president makes a crappy evil law, judges refuse to enforce it....
issue is and will be for a long time when are the judges ruling on laws or creating them...
not easily solved, i'm glad not to be involved, currently there is no law allowing one to be killed humanely which would change my opinion.
whats up with wndxq glass, you like those q's
IP: Logged |
posted
well glass, i don't think it is a stomping, historically the courts have ruled that certain cases fit the right to die senario, this one doesn't. fit into precedent.
now a higher court will look at it, i think that is good. Her parents have STANDING, which allows the the right to protest this to another level.
They filed an emergency injunction to keep there daughter alive! If the gov't is stomping for getting involved, then they would also be barbaric for ignoring the parents rights.Either way they can't win. Again, there is precedent for gov't to get involved on these types of issues, this is not new.
IP: Logged |
posted
thinkmoney: No one knows what terry wishes are but SHE is alive...becasuse she wants to be.
lucy: do you not see the absurdity in this sentence? you say nobody knows her wishes and then go on to say what her wishes are. please go take an IQ test, and then have the good shame-faced grace to recuse yourself.
meanwhile, GLASSMAN: PLEASE ELABORATE on the similar things leading up to the Civil War. finally something interesting being squeezed out of this atrocious thread.
IP: Logged |
posted
sorry, i posted too late, the thread *did* get interesting while i was composing my vitriole. i'm going to go try to will myself dead again....
IP: Logged |
posted
Keithsan, thanks for your legal perspective.
The fact that the Supreme court refused to consider it gives some affirmation to the state courts (including the Fla. supremes), does it not?
Anyone one who believes in free will should put their head in a tub of water to the point they pass out, but have someone there to pull your out and respire you.
Terri Schaivo has as much choice in determining her future as a watermelon.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness.
IP: Logged |
posted
...couldn't resist the vegetable joke eh....
SOME affirmation, again checks and balances, if they pull the tube next week no harm.... Life needs to be considered all important, this will draw the line in the sand of when to kill another.....
feeding tube isn't an extreme measure, if she had to be spoon fed, could they still stop feeding her.....
I find it interesting from the legal perspective, i haven't done a lot of reading on it though. If she's let die, it will set a fascinating precedent.
I'm not kidding with the spoon feeding, folks live like that too. if the husband wants his spoon fed wife dead....why not...
my favorite arguments are over who owns the frozen embryos in a divorce. and what can they do with them especially when the wife is no longer fertile.
quote:Originally posted by keithsan: well glass, i don't think it is a stomping, historically the courts have ruled that certain cases fit the right to die senario, this one doesn't. fit into precedent.
now a higher court will look at it, i think that is good. Her parents have STANDING, which allows the the right to protest this to another level.
They filed an emergency injunction to keep there daughter alive! If the gov't is stomping for getting involved, then they would also be barbaric for ignoring the parents rights.Either way they can't win. Again, there is precedent for gov't to get involved on these types of issues, this is not new.
i disagree that it is appropriate for the federal govt. to enact emergency legislation in this case...for starters...this case has been going on for 7 years....the fact that emergency legislation had to be enacted shows that they are trying to create a special situation for political gain. the State has ruled (19 times?), and that was against the wishes of governor Bush, now? the president will also be leaning on the judge...this is NOT how the system is supposed to work...
i know lawyers love court cases, but this is ridiculous.. a waste of resources and time...
by enacting SPECIAL legislation? it appears to me that the Fed. government has deemed the State Courts to be in error...this is the situation leading up to the civil war that i was refering to...
so does this legislation allow it to go all the way to the supreme court eventually? or will it stop here? the case has already been decided based on existing law...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
I find it interesting from the legal perspective, i haven't done a lot of reading on it though. If she's let die, it will set a fascinating precedent. this is done every day......if they are forced to keep feeding her ? THAT will set precedent...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
The vegetable joke was no joke - accurate analogy. It is no accident that they call it a vegetative state of existence.
People like Terri are allowed to die, with removal of feeding, every day.
The state (nation) has the right to kill when this provides the greatest benefit to the greatest number. A state that provides its citizens the best possible standard of living afforded by the least wasteful drain of resources, best serves its citizens. Emotion impedes this, and thus this country allows far too many parasites not only to stay alive, but to reproduce in number.
Such siily emotion will economically erode, and eventually destroy, any nation.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: I find it interesting from the legal perspective, i haven't done a lot of reading on it though. If she's let die, it will set a fascinating precedent. this is done every day......if they are forced to keep feeding her ? THAT will set precedent...
I guess i'm ignorant today, could you please post where we starve people whose parents don't want them to die. If that was precedent, there woudn't be an issue it would've been solved already.
The right to die has been argued before kevorkian and since.
Congress getting involved with court issues is NOT PRECEDENT
IP: Logged |
Keith: i like your dialogue routine. Lucy must be a relative
Yes art, the state does and I love that right. But, who decides, family, court, politicians etc...
Sadly theres a mental hospital near here with some heavy helmet wearing folks in a semi-vegitative state, can the court take them out.
I'm interested in the rule of law that will come of the case. There is precedent that her husband is out for himself, and is not trustworthy. (i have no clue). Is he for her or him, her parents are for themselves. Can the court make a ruling that will stand or be laughed at like the jim crow laws.
Normally they only do right to die when it has been written by the person who has been harmed. Because of these issues. If the court pulls the tube can the parents sue for pain and suffering, emotional distress....It could happen. Definately wouldn't surprise me if they won.
Just things to think about. It has nothing to do with Teri Sadly it has to deal with a rule, can we now take the institutionalized and exterminate them. Just the ones who couldn't live on their own....
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
