NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7254897/?GT1=6305

The gist: The PRESIDENT has signed a FEDERAL ORDER, nay, a LAW, a fucking LAW, to keep this woman's feeding tube in because her parents can't get the fuck over the facts that they are no longer her legal guardians and she is brain dead.


My favourite quote from one of the dipshits:
Among those cheering was David Bayly, of Toledo, Ohio. “I’m overjoyed to see the vote and see Terri’s life extended by whatever amount God gives her,” he said.
Wouldn't whatever amount God gives her require the feeding tube to be removed? I don't think God has any say in the matter when she is being artificially kept alive

I love how our politicians manage to find this important enough to spend god-knows how much money to push it through so quickly.

I love how our politicians manage to find this important enough to spend god-knows how much money to push it through so quickly.
Not to mention the money being paid to keep her alive. Schiavo nor Terry's family is paying for this shit now, it's the taxpayers

Yeah, I say let her die. Her husband says she wanted it, and frankly if she's never going to snap out of retard-mode I don't think it matters whether she did or not. Free up the tube and food for someone who might actually get better.

As for what God wants, I agree. If God a) existed and b) gave a shit, he'd keep her alive without the tube.

Not to mention the money being paid to keep her alive. Schiavo nor Terry's family is paying for this shit now, it's the taxpayers

Are federal taxes paying for it, or just Florida state taxes?

All pro-life / pro-death stuff aside...

Several things bother me:

1. If what her husband says is true (and the doctors say), that she is a vegetable, then she's not really suffering anymore.
2. She never put her wishes down in writing. A lesson to us all.
3. Her parents, however unrealistically, hold out hope. If you truly believe she's already dead inside, then it won't hurt to indulge the parents.
4. I have always objected to laws that treat the husband as the chattel owner of the wife - thereby excluding parents forever from any and all legal decisions. I've seen the corrosive effects of this in domestic abuse cases.
5. Her husband got a million dollars in a settlement from the lawsuit surrounding her medical injury. Sounds like he wants to spend some of the money before it's all gone - on himself.

What harm, if she's truly not conscious of any thought anymore (as her husband argues vehemently), would there be in transferring custody of her to her parents?

And then leave it alone. It's not like she's on a ventilator or heart machine. Starving someone to death, no matter how mentally vanished or incapacitated seems faintly barbaric to me.

Reminds me of the Nazi films they used to show to justify the gassing of the mentally infirm in the mid-1930s ("This is no way to live!").

Not to mention the money being paid to keep her alive. Schiavo nor Terry's family is paying for this shit now, it's the taxpayers

Although the taxpayers' money is a big issue, too, in my opinion, I feel that it's against everything humane to put this woman through this ordeal. We all have a right to end our suffering and to die with dignity. Bush just prolonged her...agony on earth.

3. Her parents, however unrealistically, hold out hope. If you truly believe she's already dead inside, then it won't hurt to indulge the parents.


But for the state to keep her alive is to indulge the parents at the expense of the taxpaying populace. Let them keep her alive, but make 'em go private so they can piss away their own money not everyone else's.

But for the state to keep her alive is to indulge the parents at the expense of the taxpaying populace. Let them keep her alive, but make 'em go private so they can piss away their own money not everyone else's.

That I completely agree with.

something i don't understand is if all these religious nuts belive some much in pro life don't they also belive that when its ur time its ur time? and another thing, not saying shes an animal or nothing but everbody keeps saying that they wouldn't let even an animal die if they were in the same spot............... well didn't they used to shoot horses if they recived a broken leg and its quality of life sucked...... it all seems really stupid to me and i say if i'm brain dead just let me fucken die and burn in hell how i'm suppose to.

But for the state to keep her alive is to indulge the parents at the expense of the taxpaying populace. Let them keep her alive, but make 'em go private so they can piss away their own money not everyone else's.

They've already said they want to take care of her at their expense. They have the money.

Ostensibly, there's also the million dollars from the court settlement. But I imagine that the husband wants to keep that for himself.

Are federal taxes paying for it, or just Florida state taxes?
Well considering George Bush just signed a bill into law to keep the woman alive I would venture to guess its into federal

Although the taxpayers' money is a big issue, too, in my opinion, I feel that it's against everything humane to put this woman through this ordeal. We all have a right to end our suffering and to die with dignity. Bush just prolonged her...agony on earth.

If you believe her husband and the doctors, she's not even capable of conscious or unconscious thought. Her cortex has shunk so radically, there's practically nothing left in there.

If we believe that, then how can she be suffering?

Well considering George Bush just signed a bill into law to keep the woman alive I would venture to guess its into federal

The law is to allow the case to be heard in Federal court.

Her husband is liable for the bills. He received over a million dollars in a court settlement to take care of her.

You're saying he should be able to merely assert (without any proof at all) that her wish was to die?

So he could spend the million? I get it.

Human life is held to a ridiculously high level on sanctity. If this life were any thing but human we'd say "Let go and let God". We'd let nature take it's course. If it couldn't feed itself or even be fed through conventional methods, we wouldn't force life into it artificially.
That being said, if it were my wife, I'd be over come with grief to see her trapped in that state for decades to come. I'd beg the powers that be to simply "Let go" and let her meet her fate. It seems barbaric to me to artificially keep a person alive in such a state, simply because that life is so precious to some that they refuse to let it go naturally. The lyrics to the song "One" by Metallica come to mind...

I'm not the most politically acute person here, but I question this use of political power. Why all this trumpeting for one woman's life? What do they see in this case that has them ending vacations to fight for her? I don't see the merit in this case; nor do I see why all this political grandstanding and showmanship is taking place.

It feels like someone is trying to pick a fight here, or something else is going on. I'm not even sure who's side anyone is on, but this feels like another political fight for the "soul of the nation" or something. I'm unclear as to why this case was even declared newsworthy in the first place, and now we have federal involvement at the highest levels...for what? The article points out that they've taken care to phrase the bill so that it doesn't creat new legal precident; they're just doing this for one person; why then do they get involved?

This should have remained local, been decided locally, if the federal government wants to get this hands on with people's legal troubles, can I get a presidential order to have the phone company stop billing me for stuff I didn't order?

Seriously, I smell a rat.

5. Her husband got a million dollars in a settlement from the lawsuit surrounding her medical injury. Sounds like he wants to spend some of the money before it's all gone - on himself.
I expect no less bs from Whispering Legs. This has been in the courts for YEARS, and that is while the husband was paying for keeping her alive during and before that and the money he spent on treatments prior to that. Yeah I would expect he would like to come out of this NOT in debt. And oh, here is something for you
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1110650465754_12/?hub=Health

Oh yes, he is a greedy bastard, turning down money to turn over care to her parents and thus be a million+ dollars richer without having to pay for anything, sounds like a greedy bastard to me

I'm not the most politically acute person here, but I question this use of political power. Why all this trumpeting for one woman's life? What do they see in this case that has them ending vacations to fight for her? I don't see the merit in this case; nor do I see why all this political grandstanding and showmanship is taking place.

It feels like someone is trying to pick a fight here, or something else is going on. I'm not even sure who's side anyone is on, but this feels like another political fight for the "soul of the nation" or something. I'm unclear as to why this case was even declared newsworthy in the first place, and now we have federal involvement at the highest levels...for what? The article points out that they've taken care to phrase the bill so that it doesn't creat new legal precident; they're just doing this for one person; why then do they get involved?

This should have remained local, been decided locally, if the federal government wants to get this hands on with people's legal troubles, can I get a presidential order to have the phone company stop billing me for stuff I didn't order?

Seriously, I smell a rat.

Yes, it smells. Yes, it's political.

Yes, her husband is a greedy asshole who has no proof that those were her wishes. He wants the million to share with his new wife.

Yes, he takes advantage of the laws that say a husband has ultimate authority over his wife in legal matters regardless of what her parents want.

I could leave the whole pro-life thing alone. It's the asshole behavior this woman's activated corpse seems to bring out in everyone.

The law is to allow the case to be heard in Federal court.

Her husband is liable for the bills. He received over a million dollars in a court settlement to take care of her.

You're saying he should be able to merely assert (without any proof at all) that her wish was to die?

So he could spend the million? I get it.
You, sir, are full of shit, try doing research instead of being an ass

They've already said they want to take care of her at their expense. They have the money.


Well then, let them. If it's true that her cortex really has completely withered, rendering her incapable of any kind of thought, (and I'm sorry if this offends anybody) then I think she's made the transition from person to object. It's just a matter of who her body now belongs to, husband or parents. With this in mind, I don't think there is really any way to morally justify either decision. Just so long as she's not soaking up the hard-earned money of the populace at large, I don't care if she lives or dies.

I expect no less bs from Whispering Legs. This has been in the courts for YEARS, and that is while the husband was paying for keeping her alive during and before that and the money he spent on treatments prior to that. Yeah I would expect he would like to come out of this NOT in debt. And oh, here is something for you
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1110650465754_12/?hub=Health

Oh yes, he is a greedy bastard, turning down money to turn over care to her parents and thus be a million+ dollars richer without having to pay for anything, sounds like a greedy bastard to me

He didn't want to appear greedy, now did he?

He already has a million dollars. All he has to do is kill his wife.

He could divorce her - and leave the money behind to care for her. Let her parents care for her.

But if he took the offer of a million, that would make him look like a real asshole.

No, you have to be careful when you're greedy. Plus, if she's still alive, someone may still come along after you got that other million, and want some more money from you.

No, better to dump the source of potential debt now. After all, money is far more important.

He didn't want to appear greedy, now did he?

He already has a million dollars. All he has to do is kill his wife.

He could divorce her - and leave the money behind to care for her. Let her parents care for her.

But if he took the offer of a million, that would make him look like a real asshole.

No, you have to be careful when you're greedy. Plus, if she's still alive, someone may still come along after you got that other million, and want some more money from you.

No, better to dump the source of potential debt now. After all, money is far more important.

It has been 15 years, between keeping her alive and corut battles, I wonder how much is left. Her parents do NOT have the right to do this and the st

Tihs is not a domestic abuse case, this is a case involving a woman in a persitant vegetative state whose husband, the one with power of attorney, says she wished to not be kept in such a state and wants to keep that wish, and he thus has the right to do so. Her parents need to let it go and greeve and the state needs to stay the fuck out of it

...

Ah, let it go. I don't know why you're involving yourselves in this woman so much. You could be doing something much more productive like... staging a protest? Maybe most of you wrote to your Senators and Representatives too, but eh.

Not to look like an asshole, but: Who cares? They let her live, hoorah! Now go back to insulting Bush like you Generalites like to do...

Oh and errh... let her live >.>

(Goes back to I.I.)

Republican's are just a bunch of Hypocrits. Their so called "moral principles" are nothing but a bunch of useful campaign slogans to them.

But I may be paiting with too broad a brush here, so I'll revise it to "A few republicans are not hypocrits".

He didn't want to appear greedy, now did he?

He already has a million dollars. All he has to do is kill his wife.

He could divorce her - and leave the money behind to care for her. Let her parents care for her.

But if he took the offer of a million, that would make him look like a real asshole.

No, you have to be careful when you're greedy. Plus, if she's still alive, someone may still come along after you got that other million, and want some more money from you.

No, better to dump the source of potential debt now. After all, money is far more important.

You really are a jerk you know.

Republican's are just a bunch of Hypocrits. Their so called "moral principles" are nothing but a bunch of useful campaign slogans to them.

But I may be paiting with too broad a brush here, so I'll revise it to "A few republicans are not hypocrits".
Five

My own views aside, I say that the family should be able to duke it out themselves. It sounds like this family has MAJOR communication and trust problems.

Omg. There are ACTUALLY alive starving people all over the world and they have to waste all this time and money on this mostly-dead lady? Yeah ok sign her over to the parents and they can do whatever they want with her, but leave him and the taxpayers out of it.

It has been 15 years, between keeping her alive and corut battles, I wonder how much is left. Her parents do NOT have the right to do this and the st

Tihs is not a domestic abuse case, this is a case involving a woman in a persitant vegetative state whose husband, the one with power of attorney, says she wished to not be kept in such a state and wants to keep that wish, and he thus has the right to do so. Her parents need to let it go and greeve and the state needs to stay the fuck out of it

I've seen men have their wives committed on that basis - and it turns out years later that nothing was wrong with the women. So you'll excuse me if I find the word of one man - her husband - that her final wishes were "X" - utterly non-credible. Especially if all of her relatives have testified to the contrary.

I've had one case just this past December. A man had his wife committed on the basis of an apparent suicide - he claimed she had taken pills. Turns out she passed out drunk - but there were no pills taken. He had the power of attorney drawn up like a bolt of lightning and had her committed - because she had threatened to leave him.

She just got out - but not before he had electroconvulsive therapy ordered up. She can't remember anything that happened now.

Happy with the idea of power of attorney? The rights of the husband?

Wait..That IS a good idea, turn her over to her parents. I give her 2-5 years before they take her off the feeding tube. It's alot easier to pretend she is alive and responsive when it is on some one else's dollar

Wait..That IS a good idea, turn her over to her parents. I give her 2-5 years before they take her off the feeding tube. It's alot easier to pretend she is alive and responsive when it is on some one else's dollar

See? Where's the downside?

I've seen men have their wives committed on that basis - and it turns out years later that nothing was wrong with the women. So you'll excuse me if I find the word of one man - her husband - that her final wishes were "X" - utterly non-credible. Especially if all of her relatives have testified to the contrary.

I've had one case just this past December. A man had his wife committed on the basis of an apparent suicide - he claimed she had taken pills. Turns out she passed out drunk - but there were no pills taken. He had the power of attorney drawn up like a bolt of lightning and had her committed - because she had threatened to leave him.

She just got out - but not before he had electroconvulsive therapy ordered up. She can't remember anything that happened now.

Happy with the idea of power of attorney? The rights of the husband?

A frog is NOT a newt.

He didn't want to appear greedy, now did he?

He already has a million dollars. All he has to do is kill his wife.

He could divorce her - and leave the money behind to care for her. Let her parents care for her.

But if he took the offer of a million, that would make him look like a real asshole.

No, you have to be careful when you're greedy. Plus, if she's still alive, someone may still come along after you got that other million, and want some more money from you.

No, better to dump the source of potential debt now. After all, money is far more important.


So whos to say that the parents aren't the greedy bastards. Trying to make the husband give up the money so they can pull the tube quietly later on and have the money for themselves, only to have this protracted court battle ruining their plans?

My own views aside, I say that the family should be able to duke it out themselves. It sounds like this family has MAJOR communication and trust problems.

Indeed. It's sad that they can't simply deal with it themselves. An issue like this should not have gone straight to court. Parents and Husband ought to have been able to come to a consensus on their own. Unfortunately, "taking it to court" has become the American way.

Wait..That IS a good idea, turn her over to her parents. I give her 2-5 years before they take her off the feeding tube. It's alot easier to pretend she is alive and responsive when it is on some one else's dollar
Probably, although I shudder to think of all the triumphant gloating of the religious right if she come back to consciousnesss, I am sure they will credit Jesus and call everybody who wanted to pull the plugs murders.

I think it would be interesting if the religious right got into a big theological debate as to whether or not she has a soul at this point, from what I hear her brain is like mostly fluid at this point-- Do you you still have a soul if your head is just a bucket of goop? Oh well, the court is going to hear whether or not to pull the plug in half an hour. Should be fun.

I expect no less bs from Whispering Legs. This has been in the courts for YEARS, and that is while the husband was paying for keeping her alive during and before that and the money he spent on treatments prior to that. Yeah I would expect he would like to come out of this NOT in debt. And oh, here is something for you
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1110650465754_12/?hub=Health

Oh yes, he is a greedy bastard, turning down money to turn over care to her parents and thus be a million+ dollars richer without having to pay for anything, sounds like a greedy bastard to me


I don't know the history of this case... But Her parents say she laughs, cries,
tryis to speak and god knows what else... How is possible that they have so different
aspects of her condition... In my opinion if she was trying to talk this wouldn't
be an issue. And if her husbands is more close to the truth, how come her
parents don't see that :confused: :confused: :confused:

Probably, although I shudder to think of all the triumphant gloating of the religious right if she come back to consciousnesss, I am sure they will credit Jesus and call everybody who wanted to pull the plugs murders.

I think it would be interesting if the religious right got into a big theological debate as to whether or not she has a soul at this point, from what I hear her brain is like mostly fluid at this point-- Do you you still have a soul if your head is just a bucket of goop? Oh well, the court is going to hear whether or not to pull the plug in half an hour. Should be fun.

It's unlikely that she will ever regain consciousness. Her whole brain has shrunk to the size of a small apple.

Just take this a step at a time.

You're the husband.
You think she wouldn't want to suffer because you believe she told you.
You have power of attorney, so you can tell the relatives to get stuffed.

If she's truly brain dead in your opinion, then it doesn't matter what happens to the body. If the parents want to take care of her body, OK. Not your problem anymore. It's not like she's going to get better.

Fight it, and we end up with the three-ring circus, and you get to be the clown.

I've seen men have their wives committed on that basis - and it turns out years later that nothing was wrong with the women. So you'll excuse me if I find the word of one man - her husband - that her final wishes were "X" - utterly non-credible. Especially if all of her relatives have testified to the contrary.

I've had one case just this past December. A man had his wife committed on the basis of an apparent suicide - he claimed she had taken pills. Turns out she passed out drunk - but there were no pills taken. He had the power of attorney drawn up like a bolt of lightning and had her committed - because she had threatened to leave him.

She just got out - but not before he had electroconvulsive therapy ordered up. She can't remember anything that happened now.

Happy with the idea of power of attorney? The rights of the husband?

So becuase a minority of men abuse power of atourney, all men in such a circumstance ought to be villanized? There are some cases where, after the divorce, women get the kids, the car, the house, alimony and child support payments, and then shack up with a new, wealthy boy friend a year later. Still, we don't curtail women's rights to divorce or continue to receive alimony and child support do we?

You hate men. We get it. But it's your problem, not ours. So please don't use issues like this to further your own hate-filled political agenda. Thanx.

So becuase a minority of men abuse power of atourney, all men in such a circumstance ought to be villanized? There are some cases where, after the divorce, women get the kids, the car, the house, alimony and child support payments, and then shack up with a new, wealthy boy friend a year later. Still, we don't curtail women's rights to divorce or continue to receive alimony and child support do we?

You hate men. We get it. But it's your problem, not ours. So please don't use issues like this to further your own hate-filled political agenda. Thanx.

Nope, you don't get it. I think that the parents should have had a say. Not just the husband.

If you want to decrease the chances that someone is acting out of selfish or underhanded reasons, make it a group decision.

I don't know the history of this case... But Her parents say she laughs, cries,
tryis to speak and god knows what else... How is possible that they have so different
aspects of her condition... In my opinion if she was trying to talk this wouldn't
be an issue. And if her husbands is more close to the truth, how come her
parents don't see that :confused: :confused: :confused:
Her parents are a TAD bit obsessed. All doctors that have examined her say she is in a persistant vegetative state and no one else says she does anythng of the sort

Nope, you don't get it. I think that the parents should have had a say. Not just the husband.

If you want to decrease the chances that someone is acting out of selfish or underhanded reasons, make it a group decision.
Her parents only have their own interests at heart, they can't let their daughter go or accept the fact she is in a vegetative state. What is their argument? "She never told us that she wouldn't want to be kept alive". Wow, that is SOOO much more convincing than her husband's statement that she told him she didn't want to be kept alive. One does not have a better reason than the other in this case so let us default to the husband who has the power to choose as her husband and who at least isn't claiming "she didn't not say she didn't want to be kept alive"

Her parents only have their own interests at heart, they can't let their daughter go or accept the fact she is in a vegetative state. What is their argument? "She never told us that she wouldn't want to be kept alive". Wow, that is SOOO much more convincing than her husband's statement that she told him she didn't want to be kept alive. One does not have a better reason than the other in this case so let us default to the husband who has the power to choose as her husband and who at least isn't claiming "she didn't not say she didn't want to be kept alive"

If she's brain dead, then what's the harm in indulging in her parents' wish? Answer that one. She wouldn't know the difference. Her husband could go on with his life. Her parents would be happy.

And the Republicans wouldn't be dancing on top of Democrats saying "look a Democrat wants to starve a helpless woman to death..."

And the Republicans wouldn't be dancing on top of Democrats saying "look a Democrat wants to starve a helpless woman to death..."
I think it is more of a slippery slope fear. I assume conservatives are just worried that if we let human vegetables perish, then it won't be that big of a leap to doctor assisted sucides for terminally ill and the like.

If she's brain dead, then what's the harm in indulging in her parents' wish? Answer that one. She wouldn't know the difference. Her husband could go on with his life. Her parents would be happy.

And the Republicans wouldn't be dancing on top of Democrats saying "look a Democrat wants to starve a helpless woman to death..."
The difference is the claim is it ISN'T HER WISH to be kept alive artificially and there is no reason to be wasting tax payer money on this. She isn't a fucking cat or a family heirloom rocking horse with a broken rocker. She is a human being.

It's unlikely that she will ever regain consciousness. Her whole brain has shrunk to the size of a small apple.

Just take this a step at a time.

You're the husband.
You think she wouldn't want to suffer because you believe she told you.
You have power of attorney, so you can tell the relatives to get stuffed.

If she's truly brain dead in your opinion, then it doesn't matter what happens to the body. If the parents want to take care of her body, OK. Not your problem anymore. It's not like she's going to get better.

Fight it, and we end up with the three-ring circus, and you get to be the clown.

God forbid this situation ever happens to me. But if it did, there is no way I could simply wash my hands of my wife and say to her parents "It's your problem now". Nor could I allow her to continue suffering for potential decades to come.

It's agreed: She won't get better... Ever! If you're waiting for a mircale of biblical proportions, you're going to be disappointed and cause undue suffering for many people. So why do we artificialy keep these people in a state of half-death simply for sentimental value? That is truely barbaric.

I find it offensive that you automatically assume he's trying to profit off of this situation simply because you may or may not have seen a somewhat similar case before somewhere.

True. There ought to be consensus among both partys. But the parents don't or won't see reason. So because they are blinded by greif, we should allow the suffering of all to continue? If only to satisfy the sentimentality?

God forbid this situation ever happens to me. But if it did, there is no way I could simply wash my hands of my wife and say to her parents "It's your problem now". Nor could I allow her to continue suffering for potential decades to come.

It's agreed: She won't get better... Ever! If you're waiting for a mircale of biblical proportions, you're going to be disappointed and cause undue suffering for many people. So why do we artificialy keep these people in a state of half-death simply for sentimental value? That is truely barbaric.

I find it offensive that you automatically assume he's trying to profit off of this situation simply because you may or may not have seen a somewhat similar case before somewhere.

True. There ought to be consensus among both partys. But the parents don't or won't see reason. So because they are blinded by greif, we should allow the suffering of all to continue? If only to satisfy the sentimentality?



If you are asserting that she's brain dead, you need to answer me - how is she suffering?

The truth is, she's not suffering.

So, let her parents have her. She's not going to suffer.

See? Where's the downside?

The downside is that Terri would have to suffer some more. While I agree that her brain has gone to goop, but before it has. I think she was in her own personal hell, being like that. I mean why don't you try laying in bed for an entire day, not move, not talk, or do anything. Just lie there. It'd be horrible! Now imagine going through 15 years of that! Shes already been starved once, and I think its done some damage to her organs, and this second starving is just going to damage it some more. Pretty soon we'll just have Terri's body, with the automatic response. What you'd have basically is an object that can response to stimuli and nothing else. I think its time to let Terri out of her prison and let her fly home.

The downside is that Terri would have to suffer some more. While I agree that her brain has gone to goop, but before it has. I think she was in her own personal hell, being like that. I mean why don't you try laying in bed for an entire day, not move, not talk, or do anything. Just lie there. It'd be horrible! Now imagine going through 15 years of that! Shes already been starved once, and I think its done some damage to her organs, and this second starving is just going to damage it some more. Pretty soon we'll just have Terri's body, with the automatic response. What you'd have basically is an object that can response to stimuli and nothing else. I think its time to let Terri out of her prison and let her fly home.

Ever since the accident, she's been a vegetable. For 15 years she's been UNABLE to suffer.

How could she suffer? She's got a cortex with the surface area of a small apple.

Wouldn't whatever amount God gives her require the feeding tube to be removed? I don't think God has any say in the matter when she is being artificially kept alive

Meh, if God felt like He wanted a say, He would destroy the feeding tube. :D

Ever since the accident, she's been a vegetable. For 15 years she's been UNABLE to suffer.

How could she suffer? She's got a cortex with the surface area of a small apple.

You've never taken biology class have ya? Yea, the brain just didn't go to goop when she had her accident. It was a slow progress of gooping. So somewhere in that slow progress, she was able to suffer. I personally think the parents are just being selfish now, they are only thinking about themselves, and not doing whats best for Terri.

Ever since the accident, she's been a vegetable. For 15 years she's been UNABLE to suffer.

How could she suffer? She's got a cortex with the surface area of a small apple.
Then why keep her alive. You claim the husband is a selfish greedy bastard and the parents and Republican looneys are the fucking Justice League trying to save the woman's wife from Duke Dastardly, her husband, yet you continue to treat her like an object, a non-human little trinket that can be passed around to whomever wants it. The only one that disgusts me between all of these people, except maybe the idiots passing laws on this, is you

If you believe her husband and the doctors, she's not even capable of conscious or unconscious thought. Her cortex has shunk so radically, there's practically nothing left in there.

If we believe that, then how can she be suffering?


A better question: Why keep her alive and waste everyone's time and money?

Edit: They beat me to it

You know, I'm suprised Hospice has let this go on. Hospice is on the "right to die" crowd. I should know, my mother is the head of her Hospice department, and she had to dispact doctors, social service, etc, when a person is going to be taken off of life support. I think Hospice needs to step in, get the parents soical security and a consuler, and just have their doctors remove the tubes.

It is now 3pm eastern time, the federal court should should now be begining to considerwhether or not to keep this debacle going for another fews years or not...

You've never taken biology class have ya? Yea, the brain just didn't go to goop when she had her accident. It was a slow progress of gooping. So somewhere in that slow progress, she was able to suffer. I personally think the parents are just being selfish now, they are only thinking about themselves, and not doing whats best for Terri.

Exactly. A lot of things like this tend to be just for the family.. and not what the person dead or suffering would have wanted. They keep her alive so that THEY can cope.. or maybe they like the drama in their life.

Then why keep her alive. You claim the husband is a selfish greedy bastard and the parents and Republican looneys are the fucking Justice League trying to save the woman's wife from Duke Dastardly, her husband, yet you continue to treat her like an object, a non-human little trinket that can be passed around to whomever wants it. The only one that disgusts me between all of these people, except maybe the idiots passing laws on this, is you

I'm saying it won't make a difference to Terri if you let her parents care for her like a pet cat. It won't hurt Terri. It won't hurt her husband. It won't hurt her parents. It will take the wind out of the Republican sails.

Poof. Just like that. She's not a non-human object - but her doctors and her husband all agree - she's effectively dead already without any hope of recovery.

Either you believe what the doctors believe, or you believe that she's conscious of what's going on. I happen to believe the doctors. In such a case, it does no harm to let her parents care for the body.

If you are asserting that she's brain dead, you need to answer me - how is she suffering?

The truth is, she's not suffering.

So, let her parents have her. She's not going to suffer.

That kind of life is no life at all. I hope to God that if this were ever to happen to me, my loved ones would have the common sense to let me go. It's the natural and compassionate thing to do.

That kind of life is no life at all. I hope to God that if this were ever to happen to me, my loved ones would have the common sense to let me go. It's the natural and compassionate thing to do.

If you're not there in your body, who is there to have compassion on?

In such a case, it does no harm to let her parents care for the body.
No harm except in the fact of indulging a continuing delusion shared by her parents that their daughter is responding to them. They should take away the feeding tube, send her parents to a psychologist and let them grieve.

Poof. Just like that. She's not a non-human object - but her doctors and her husband all agree - she's effectively dead already without any hope of recovery.


.

If she is effectively dead already, without any hope of recovery. What the point of keeping her alive? I mean if we're just going to keep her alive for the sake of keeping her "alive" then that sounds pretty damn selfish to me.

No harm accept in the fact of indulging a continuing delusion shared by her parents that their daughter is responding to them. They should take away the feeding tube, send her parents to a psychologist and let them grieve.

So you're saying the state should interfere in this nonsense?

The truth of the matter though Legs, is that any argument with you is moot any ways. If the roles were reversed, and the husband wanted to keep her alive and the parents wanted to remove the tube, you's still champion the parents cause. Becuase he's a sleazy bastard who'd only be keeping her alive so he could continue to receive care money and profit off of her.
So lets just continue to :headbang:

Common Myths Perpetuated in the Schiavo Case:

1. Terri might be in this state because her husband beat her and he does not want her to wake up and spread the truth.

Wrong. She is in this state because of a severe heart attack brought on by a potassium imbalance most likely due to bulimia.

2. Terri has a chance, no matter how small, to recover. Therefore, she should not be allowed to die.

False. Nearly her entire cerebral cortex has liquified. Even if we were somehow able to regrow it, Terri wouldn't be there. All the nueral connections that made Terri Terri would be gone. Of course, the idea of regrowing a cortex is pure science fiction, anyway.

3. The husband wants her to die to collect insurance/medical loans/blah blah blah.

False. He turned down an offer of just over 11 million dollars to which the only condition was to turn over legal guardianship of Terri to her parents/

4. The husband wants her to die so he can marry his mistress.

Wrong again. In Florida, there are laws that would allow him to divorce Terri without her consent, thus allowing him to marry his mistress.

5. The husband is the only one we have to testify that Terri did not want to be in this state.

Still false. It has been established through more than a dozen different court cases and several witnesses that are neither the husband or members of the immediate family that Terri's wishes to not exist in such a state had indeed been verbalized on numerous occasions.

6. She isn't braindead! She responds to things like balloons and her family!

Mostly wrong. What is right is that her brain isn't dead. The only thing is that the cortex, the portion of the brain responsible for concious thought, decision making, and several other important sentient functions is now almost entirely liquified. All that is left of it is spinal fluid.

However, parts of her brain responsible for reflex and other unconcious things still exist and are responsible for the several hours of footage showing her responding to stimuli (but to be fair, those several hours are out of hundreds, even thousands of hours where she didn't).

7. Removing her feeding tube will be immensily painful!

This one is actually true in a way, but, unfortunately, that is the only way to allow her to go. Euthensia (sp) is not legal in Florida or the United States as a whole, so removing her life support (and under Florida state law, feeding tubes count as life support) is the only thing legally possible.

Anything I forgot?

So you're saying the state should interfere in this nonsense?
Not how you are trying to play it off, no. If the state insists on interfering, they should do so for the PARENTS well being, not to try and bullshit around for political motivation. The parents need to see a psych

I really wish Hospice would step in. I may fly my mother down there to talk some sense into that department. WAKE UP HOSPICE!

I really wish Hospice would step in. I may fly my mother down there to talk some sense into that department. WAKE UP HOSPICE!

Actually, I thought the purpose of Hospice care was the make someone as comfortable as possible until they die. That's why my mom went there right before...well...yeah. She didn't want to do the in and out of the hospital thing for another five years, so she went to the local hospice care facility to...

God damn it, nevermind, I can't talk about this stuff.

Not how you are trying to play it off, no. If the state insists on interfering, they should do so for the PARENTS well being, not to try and bullshit around for political motivation. The parents need to see a psych

I don't see that you could substantiate a psychological course of treatment for the parents.

Apparently, the doctors are not able to declare her "dead". Neither is she on a machine that keeps her alive in the more familiar sense (no ventilator, no heart pump).

So she's there. You would have to actively not do something in order to kill her - and it would take days - not the few minutes of being off a respirator.

I really don't see the harm in letting her parents be happy. If it was reversed, I don't see the problem in letting the husband be happy (if he wanted to keep her alive and the parents wanted her dead).

Wouldn't whatever amount God gives her require the feeding tube to be removed? I don't think God has any say in the matter when she is being artificially kept alive

By this logic do you also oppose the use of incubators for premature babies? After all they would die if it were not for the machines in almost all cases.

Common Myths Perpetuated in the Schiavo Case:
7. Removing her feeding tube will be immensily painful!

This one is actually true in a way, but, unfortunately, that is the only way to allow her to go. Euthensia (sp) is not legal in Florida or the United States as a whole, so removing her life support (and under Florida state law, feeding tubes count as life support) is the only thing legally possible.

Anything I forgot?

Unfortunately, death usually is a painful experience for most people. Not exactly something that can be avoided.
Still, thanx for the enlightening post.

I don't see that you could substantiate a psychological course of treatment for the parents.

Apparently, the doctors are not able to declare her "dead". Neither is she on a machine that keeps her alive in the more familiar sense (no ventilator, no heart pump).

So she's there. You would have to actively not do something in order to kill her - and it would take days - not the few minutes of being off a respirator.

I really don't see the harm in letting her parents be happy. If it was reversed, I don't see the problem in letting the husband be happy (if he wanted to keep her alive and the parents wanted her dead).

Just once, please, humor me. Think about Terri! Forget the parents and forget the husband. If it was just Terri, what would you do, in her best intrest? Because this is basically what it all boils down to.

All pro-life / pro-death stuff aside...

Several things bother me:

1. If what her husband says is true (and the doctors say), that she is a vegetable, then she's not really suffering anymore.
2. She never put her wishes down in writing. A lesson to us all.
3. Her parents, however unrealistically, hold out hope. If you truly believe she's already dead inside, then it won't hurt to indulge the parents.
4. I have always objected to laws that treat the husband as the chattel owner of the wife - thereby excluding parents forever from any and all legal decisions. I've seen the corrosive effects of this in domestic abuse cases.
5. Her husband got a million dollars in a settlement from the lawsuit surrounding her medical injury. Sounds like he wants to spend some of the money before it's all gone - on himself.

What harm, if she's truly not conscious of any thought anymore (as her husband argues vehemently), would there be in transferring custody of her to her parents?

And then leave it alone. It's not like she's on a ventilator or heart machine. Starving someone to death, no matter how mentally vanished or incapacitated seems faintly barbaric to me.

Reminds me of the Nazi films they used to show to justify the gassing of the mentally infirm in the mid-1930s ("This is no way to live!").
An excellent analysis. I suspect that one reason so many seem to be so agitated about this case is that, somewhere in the back of their minds they see themselves in one of the three roles: victim, persecutor, or defender. It's like a classic "triad."

If I were Ms. Shiavo's father, I would probably do the same thing he's doing ... try to keep my daughter alive as long as I could. I would probbly want to kill that SOB she's married to; he waits until she's been in a coma for seven months then says, "Oh, by the way, Terri said she doesn't ever want to be kept alive in this state." Was that before or after he started shacking up with his latest slut?

if god was so great she wouldn't be there in the first place
we're all a part of nature The strongest survive the the meek shall perish what ever the cause may be
may she rest in peace turn the machines off

There is a middle of the road sollution that is likely to have a far better outcome then the two proposed sollutions. Simply have her cryogenically frozen. Use the settlement money to pay tank rental fees and resuscitation costs. If they find a way to repair the damage sometime in the future she'll be able to live a full and healthy life. If not she is no worse off that she is now.

There is a middle of the road sollution that is likely to have a far better outcome then the two proposed sollutions. Simply have her cryogenically frozen. Use the settlement money to pay tank rental fees and resuscitation costs. If they find a way to repair the damage sometime in the future she'll be able to live a full and healthy life. If not she is no worse off that she is now.
Well her brain is already mostly gone. And Cryogenic suspension doesn't really work anyway since water exapands when it freezes which explodes your cells like when meat gets freezer burn, which would destroy the last remanents of her cerebral cortex.

Just once, please, humor me. Think about Terri! Forget the parents and forget the husband. If it was just Terri, what would you do, in her best intrest? Because this is basically what it all boils down to.

I am thinking about Terri. And I'm agreeing with the doctors. There is no way that she is aware of anything - she's effectively dead as a conscious, thinking, feeling being.

There is no substantive evidence, other than the word of her husband, that she wanted to die. There is no substantive evidence, other than the word of all her other relatives, that she wanted to stay alive.

She is not suffering. I cannot emphasize that more. She is not suffering.

I am thinking about Terri. And I'm agreeing with the doctors. There is no way that she is aware of anything - she's effectively dead as a conscious, thinking, feeling being.

There is no substantive evidence, other than the word of her husband, that she wanted to die. There is no substantive evidence, other than the word of all her other relatives, that she wanted to stay alive.

She is not suffering. I cannot emphasize that more. She is not suffering.

Yes but thats no reason to treat her like an object. As of now this body is just a prison for Terri, I say let her die and fly home.

An excellent analysis. I suspect that one reason so many seem to be so agitated about this case is that, somewhere in the back of their minds they see themselves in one of the three roles: victim, persecutor, or defender. It's like a classic "triad."

If I were Ms. Shiavo's father, I would probably do the same thing he's doing ... try to keep my daughter alive as long as I could. I would probbly want to kill that SOB she's married to; he waits until she's been in a coma for seven months then says, "Oh, by the way, Terri said she doesn't ever want to be kept alive in this state." Was that before or after he started shacking up with his latest slut?

So I suppose you see yourself in the role of the disabled wife then?

"How dare he move on with his life! He ought to remain faithful for as many decades as his wife can be artificially kept (what passes for) alive!"

Bring on the Feminazis! I love you people. Seriously.
For you people, this has less to do with her as it has to do with him. "That lousy bastard!"

Yes but thats no reason to treat her like an object. As of now this body is just a prison for Terri, I say let her die and fly home.

Amen.

Yes but thats no reason to treat her like an object. As of now this body is just a prison for Terri, I say let her die and fly home.

That's what her husband has planned for her. He can do to her inanimate body what you can't do to a dog in Florida.

Well her brain is already mostly gone. And Cryogenic suspension doesn't really work anyway since water exapands when it freezes which explodes your cells like when meat gets freezer burn, which would destroy the last remanents of her cerebral cortex.

Well, by the time they've found a way to restore life to the dead they'll probably have found a way around that problem, as well. I'm not saying that she'll come out of it being the exact same person but it is better than being dead.

That's what her husband has planned for her. He can do to her inanimate body what you can't do to a dog in Florida.

Now your just talking nonsense. Oh and in 1990, when the accident happen. The court DID appoint Terri's husband at her legal guardian. So I say lets honor the husband's wish.

Now your just talking nonsense. Oh and in 1990, when the accident happen. The court DID appoint Terri's husband at her legal guardian. So I say lets honor the husband's wish.

How is starving a brain-dead body to death over a couple of weeks a "humane" thing to do?

It would have been kinder to give her a massive injection of phenobarb into her heart. But that assumes that she has a mind to know the kindness.

She doesn't have a mind. And her husband is the legal guardian with power of attorney. So he's allowed to starve her to death.

Well, by the time they've found a way to restore life to the dead they'll probably have found a way around that problem, as well. I'm not saying that she'll come out of it being the exact same person but it is better than being dead.
Cryogenics is pretty cool but I can't imagine terri would be thrilled to wake up in a strange future, with severe mental retardation, complete amnesia, and with all her friends and relatives dead. That would kind of suck.

I am thinking about Terri. And I'm agreeing with the doctors. There is no way that she is aware of anything - she's effectively dead as a conscious, thinking, feeling being.

There is no substantive evidence, other than the word of her husband, that she wanted to die. There is no substantive evidence, other than the word of all her other relatives, that she wanted to stay alive.

She is not suffering. I cannot emphasize that more. She is not suffering.

no that does not give her parents the right to keep her half alive for another 20 or 30 years. the poor woman is already dead. her husband is doing the right thing. it is the last measure of love that he keeps fighting for her right to die. i certainly hope my husband would do the same for me.

How is starving a brain-dead body to death over a couple of weeks a "humane" thing to do?

It would have been kinder to give her a massive injection of phenobarb into her heart. But that assumes that she has a mind to know the kindness.

She doesn't have a mind. And her husband is the legal guardian with power of attorney. So he's allowed to starve her to death.

Well, Florida laws does not support a "right to die", so you can't do that. The only way you can let Terri die and get around the law is to remove the tube.

Cryogenics is pretty cool but I can't imagine terri would be thrilled to wake up in a strange future, with severe mental retardation, complete amnesia, and with all her friends and relatives dead. That would kind of suck.
Yeah, and owing someone money for all that time in the freezer...

Yeah, and owing someone money for all that time in the freezer...
Especially if it was paid for all those years on her credit card-- The shock of seeing her credit card bill for her 300 year ice nap with centuries of compound interest would probably do her in once and for all.

I've never seen the logic in saying it's ok to let someone starve but then be agasint giving them an injection to kill them faster.

The parents need to let go, it's not their daughter lying there it's just an empty husk. She might not be suffering but everyone else is having to put up with the BS that's flying round.

Seems I'm destined to disagree with Whispering Legs and Eutrusca on almost everything....

What a waste of 300 years in a freezer :P

This would be an interesting read, from a lady who has been in Terri's situation:
Link (http://www.discardedlies.com/entries/2005/03/kate_adamson_speaks_out_on_terri.php)

Now, you'll have to be intellectual about it (which is a bit hard for some people, I know), but if you can divest it of the lady's religious overtones (she's a Christian - get over it), it remains true that she was in the same situation as Ms. Schiavo is, now.

While her (ex?) husband (Terri's) continues to state that she is effectively dead, I find it interesting that her parents still claim she is able to understand her surroundings - much the way the lady in the link was able to.

If her (again, Terri's) parents are more than willing to take on the expenses for her medical procedures, then why not let them?

I find it hard to believe that parents who care enough about their daughter to place their own finances behind an admittably difficult road to recovery would be doing so if they had any indication that their daughter didn't WANT to continue living.


I find it hard to believe that Michael Schiavo worries too much about Terri - he's not divorced from her, true, but he's currently living with another woman and has two children by her.

I contrast that to the allegations (in the form of a released statement) by Terri's parents, claiming "...we love our daughter very much and we want her home. Over the last 13 years, Terri has laughed with us, cried with us, talked with us, and even tried to get out of her chair. The accusations that Terri is in a coma or is a vegetable ... is a lie."

I don't understand why Mr. Schaivo is so intent on having Terri's feeding tube removed - he realy doesnt' have much to lose by allowing her parents their wishes, in taking the responsibility on themselves.

I guess I'd have to err, were I in charge of the decision, on the side of caution - I'd surely hesitate greatly before assigning someone a death penalty for an alleged crime, just in case he were innocent - in the same vein, I'd hesitate significantly before causing the feeding tube to be removed - if she (Terri) does happen to be aware, the resulting slow death that would be 10 times more cruel than a mere execution by lethal injection.

So I suppose you see yourself in the role of the disabled wife then?

"How dare he move on with his life! He ought to remain faithful for as many decades as his wife can be artificially kept (what passes for) alive!"

Bring on the Feminazis! I love you people. Seriously.
For you people, this has less to do with her as it has to do with him. "That lousy bastard!"
I've seen a number of people just like him. Marry a beautiful woman ( which Terri Schiavo was, IMHO ), then bail out as soon as the going gets tough. I've seen women do the same thing, only it's usually marry a rich guy then leave when hard times come.

As far as I'm concerned, these people are scum of the earth. I would give more consideration to a murderer than I would to them. Part of being in a permanent relationship with another human being is giving them loyalty. Leaving when the going gets rough is not an option. What about couples who have lived together for many years and one of them gets Alzheimer's? "Oh well. She doesn't know me anyway, so I may as well find someone else and just abandon her." That is not love. It's not even kindness. And it's certainly not devotion or loyalty.

I've never seen the logic in saying it's ok to let someone starve but then be agasint giving them an injection to kill them faster.

The parents need to let go, it's not their daughter lying there it's just an empty husk. She might not be suffering but everyone else is having to put up with the BS that's flying round.

Seems I'm destined to disagree with Whispering Legs and Eutrusca on almost everything....

No, I'm against starving and OK with the injection (as long as it's painless and quick). Otherwise, there is an ethical equality on the part of the husband and the parents.

The husband wishes to treat her as an object - and throw her out as soon as the body dies - in a couple of weeks of starvation.

The parents wish to treat her as some sort of exotic pet - and feed her until she dies - someday down the road.

If I had to pick the lesser harm, I'd go with the feeding, as we don't have the painless out as an option. It also harms the fewest people, and removes any ammunition from those with a political axe to grind.

I've seen a number of people just like him. Marry a beautiful woman ( which Terri Schiavo was, IMHO ), then bail out as soon as the going gets tough. I've seen women do the same thing, only it's usually marry a rich guy then leave when hard times come.

As far as I'm concerned, these people are scum of the earth. I would give more consideration to a murderer than I would to them. Part of being in a permanent relationship with another human being is giving them loyalty. Leaving when the going gets rough is not an option. What about couples who have lived together for many years and one of them gets Alzheimer's? "Oh well. She doesn't know me anyway, so I may as well find someone else and just abandon her." That is not love. It's not even kindness. And it's certainly not devotion or loyalty.


except that he DIDNT bail out. he could have walked away at any time. he has stayed married to her for 15 years. he is fighting to make sure her own wishes are followed. i find him to be an amazing man.

The husband wishes to treat her as an object - and throw her out as soon as the body dies - in a couple of weeks of starvation.
.
Actually I think they aren't giving her liquids either which should kill you in 3 or 4 days. Still it is a little morbid. It is too bad it is illegal to just give her a little shot in the arm.

I've seen a number of people just like him. Marry a beautiful woman ( which Terri Schiavo was, IMHO ), then bail out as soon as the going gets tough. I've seen women do the same thing, only it's usually marry a rich guy then leave when hard times come.

As far as I'm concerned, these people are scum of the earth. I would give more consideration to a murderer than I would to them. Part of being in a permanent relationship with another human being is giving them loyalty. Leaving when the going gets rough is not an option. What about couples who have lived together for many years and one of them gets Alzheimer's? "Oh well. She doesn't know me anyway, so I may as well find someone else and just abandon her." That is not love. It's not even kindness. And it's certainly not devotion or loyalty.
Again, I'm not surprised by the level of "intelligence" in the post. You call some one scum of the earth because he does not want to artificially keep his wife alive because he, AND OTHER PEOPLE, state that his wife would not wish to be. It is not that she is disabled, she is in a vegetative state. You are comparing this to people who are living and just have disabilities. I wasn't aware a vegetative state counted as a "disability."

Actually I think they aren't giving her liquids either which should kill you in 3 or 4 days. Still it is a little morbid. It is too bad it is illegal to just give her a little shot in the arm.

Too bad her husband didn't have the balls to hold a pillow over her face. If he really believed in her wishes, he had plenty of time to do that.

There are other people who have done that - and walked after a few years in prison.

Actually I think they aren't giving her liquids either which should kill you in 3 or 4 days. Still it is a little morbid. It is too bad it is illegal to just give her a little shot in the arm.
they also have her sedated

odd considering that it is the doctors opinion that she is incapable of suffering. but i guess it makes everyone else feel better about it.

The husband wishes to treat her as an object - and throw her out as soon as the body dies - in a couple of weeks of starvation.
The ONLY one treating her as an object is YOU. You are persistently repeating how she isn't there any more so its ok to pass her around to whomever wants to own her this week like a fucking family heriloom. I see all the "compassionate" people are the only ones being the least compassionate in a normal way

The ONLY one treating her as an object is YOU. You are persistently repeating how she isn't there any more so its ok to pass her around to whomever wants to own her this week like a fucking family heriloom. I see all the "compassionate" people are the only ones being the least compassionate in a normal way

No, her husband and her doctors are the ones who are persistently repeating that she isn't there anymore, so it's OK to starve her.

It is nothing more than political grandstanding. None of these senators gives a rats ass about her, or him. They only want to look good to the voters, which backfires in my mind. They should mind their own business. It's not like there isn't more important issues to address. Sheeesh :headbang:

Too bad her husband didn't have the balls to hold a pillow over her face. If he really believed in her wishes, he had plenty of time to do that.

There are other people who have done that - and walked after a few years in prison.
thats what i told my husband i would want him to do in the same circumstance. he flatly refused but i think he might do it if it ever really happened.

except that he DIDNT bail out. he could have walked away at any time. he has stayed married to her for 15 years. he is fighting to make sure her own wishes are followed. i find him to be an amazing man.
Easy to stay "married" when you have your own private slut on the side.

He didn't even mention the conversation only he and Terri supposedly had until seven years later! Sounds to me like he wanted out and dreamed it up to justify killing her. As far as I'm concerned he's one worthless bastard.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7254897/?GT1=6305

The gist: The PRESIDENT has signed a FEDERAL ORDER, nay, a LAW, a fucking LAW, to keep this woman's feeding tube in because her parents can't get the fuck over the facts that they are no longer her legal guardians and she is brain dead.


My favourite quote from one of the dipshits:

Wouldn't whatever amount God gives her require the feeding tube to be removed? I don't think God has any say in the matter when she is being artificially kept alive

1) she isn't brain dead! That is a misconception on the media's part!

2) The US Senate approved it unanomously and the US House also approved it overwelmingly

3) She wasn't being alive. It was a FEEDING TUBE FOR FOOD AND WATER. She WAS NOT on a respirator.

You need to get your facts straight.

As for this, I don't care one way or the other. However, the facts are there that the Florida Judge did make a mistake. She isn't in a vegitative state. She is alert and according to doctors she can use therapy to feed herself.

Great ABC poll data up:

19 % of respondents believe Congressional intervention is motivated out of concern for Schiavo.

67 % of respondents believe Congressional intervention is motivated by the prospect of political gain.

Easy to stay "married" when you have your own private slut on the side.

He didn't even mention the conversation only he and Terri supposedly had until seven years later! Sounds to me like he wanted out and dreamed it up to justify killing her. As far as I'm concerned he's one worthless bastard.

If my memory serves me, Michael has two children by another woman, as well.

It is nothing more than political grandstanding. None of these senators gives a rats ass about her, or him. They only want to look good to the voters, which backfires in my mind. They should mind their own business. It's not like there isn't more important issues to address. Sheeesh :headbang:
dont you just love politics?

Easy to stay "married" when you have your own private slut on the side.

He didn't even mention the conversation only he and Terri supposedly had until seven years later! Sounds to me like he wanted out and dreamed it up to justify killing her. As far as I'm concerned he's one worthless bastard.

First it was seven month, now its seven years. Come back to me when you have the correct figures.

Again, I'm not surprised by the level of "intelligence" in the post. You call some one scum of the earth because he does not want to artificially keep his wife alive because he, AND OTHER PEOPLE, state that his wife would not wish to be. It is not that she is disabled, she is in a vegetative state. You are comparing this to people who are living and just have disabilities. I wasn't aware a vegetative state counted as a "disability."
What "OTHER PEOPLE?" I'm not aware of anyone else besides this scumbag who even suggested that Terri wanted to die.

What about Alzheimer's? They don't remember anything or anyone, why not just kill them too?

dont you just love politics?

Hey, the end justifies the means, doesn't it? If the allowance to remove the feeding tube is stayed, and Terri comes out of it later, I guess it won't matter how it happened, just that it did.

First it was seven month, now its seven years. Come back to me when you have the correct figures.
No. It's always been seven years. And don't worry, I won't "come back to" you on a bet anyway! LOL!

1) she isn't brain dead! That is a misconception on the media's part!

2) The US Senate approved it unanomously and the US House also approved it overwelmingly

3) She wasn't being alive. It was a FEEDING TUBE FOR FOOD AND WATER. She WAS NOT on a respirator.

You need to get your facts straight.

As for this, I don't care one way or the other. However, the facts are there that the Florida Judge did make a mistake. She isn't in a vegitative state. She is alert and according to doctors she can use therapy to feed herself.

Actually SEVERAL doctors has state that she IS in a presisted vegitative state. Which means what you have now, is what your going to get, period.

No, her husband and her doctors are the ones who are persistently repeating that she isn't there anymore, so it's OK to starve her.
Well then here's your solution, go write the Florida Congress to make euthanasia legal.

Easy to stay "married" when you have your own private slut on the side.

He didn't even mention the conversation only he and Terri supposedly had until seven years later! Sounds to me like he wanted out and dreamed it up to justify killing her. As far as I'm concerned he's one worthless bastard.
oh yes EASY to leave yourself, your new love, and your children open to constant public scorn and the occasional death threat. a walk in the park

there is no benefit to him to press the issue rather than just walk away. there is no money left, the state is paying for her hospice care. there is only a man trying to let his wife die as she said she would want to.

What "OTHER PEOPLE?" I'm not aware of anyone else besides this scumbag who even suggested that Terri wanted to die.

What about Alzheimer's? They don't remember anything or anyone, why not just kill them too?
I will not argue with you, I have never liked any opinion you gave or considered it intelligent or gospel as many people here do. When you have something intelligent to say and it is backed up by something, come back and then we can talk

If my memory serves me, Michael has two children by another woman, as well.
Yep. He's a real sweetheart, this guy is.

You know I am tired of all of the "husband" bashing that goes on. If you want to see what Micheal has done for Terri, look here.

http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/timeline.htm

Well then here's your solution, go write the Florida Congress to make euthanasia legal.

Even simpler. He could fly her to Oregon, and with his power of attorney, get assisted suicide. They would put the drugs in her feeding tube, and there you go.

Yeah, I wonder how many guys actually have the balls.

I will not argue with you, I have never liked any opinion you gave or considered it intelligent or gospel as many people here do. When you have something intelligent to say and it is backed up by something, come back and then we can talk
No thank you. I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

No thank you. I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
Then we will of course be equally equipped for a fight

All pro-life / pro-death stuff aside...

Several things bother me:

1. If what her husband says is true (and the doctors say), that she is a vegetable, then she's not really suffering anymore.
2. She never put her wishes down in writing. A lesson to us all.
3. Her parents, however unrealistically, hold out hope. If you truly believe she's already dead inside, then it won't hurt to indulge the parents.
4. I have always objected to laws that treat the husband as the chattel owner of the wife - thereby excluding parents forever from any and all legal decisions. I've seen the corrosive effects of this in domestic abuse cases.
5. Her husband got a million dollars in a settlement from the lawsuit surrounding her medical injury. Sounds like he wants to spend some of the money before it's all gone - on himself.

What harm, if she's truly not conscious of any thought anymore (as her husband argues vehemently), would there be in transferring custody of her to her parents?

And then leave it alone. It's not like she's on a ventilator or heart machine. Starving someone to death, no matter how mentally vanished or incapacitated seems faintly barbaric to me.

Reminds me of the Nazi films they used to show to justify the gassing of the mentally infirm in the mid-1930s ("This is no way to live!").
You're absolutely right, and you may not know this but Terri's husband had OPPURTUNITIES to let nurses try and rehabilitate her and he wouldn't let them.

He wouldn't let her go outside to see the sun though she was allowed to leave the premisis.

He wouldn't even let a preist come and give her commune. She's Catholic.

He is in every shape and form.. a monster.. a burden on society, he is by far worse then Scott Peterson or any other lamer, because yes, Scott was a greedy sonofabitch as well, but he had to do something quick like axe-murder, where as this guy has been waiting three years to get the big score and just found a way to quicken that toll. And the pinkos are just HANDING it to him. I say pinkos because no human being with any sense of right and wrong would even contepmate the need to justify such an atrosity. The only reason they're defending this beast is because the conservatives did, and because they're all ass-puppets with no minds of thier own they have to do the exact oppisite of what "the Bible-thumpers" do..

I get called a liberal all the time, and I'm telling you right now THIS IS WRONG. I don't give a monkey's ass about what anyone has to say, I have seen the evidence, I have heard countless testimoneys from both sides of the playing field, and further more.. I live in Florida. And that was fucking wrong. And thank God our goverment is atleast trying to make sure crap like this never happens again. It's too late for Terri, but atleast this motivated our lazy supiriors to get off thier bums and do something about these gaps in the judicial system..

As for that less then animal souless peice of shit, I hope one of these days I am able to get my hands on a gun and have atleast one bullet. I'll find out where that bastard lives, shoot him in the spine so he's paralyzed, then unhook his tube so his ass starves to death. However, not before i stick my dick in his mouth and mutter in his ear (Cause just cause he can't move or talk don't mean he's incapable of understanding..) that this will be his regular proffession in the Hell mouth and that i hope he likes the taste of devil's semen..

That's why people are getting away with so much now. There just isn't enough of us psychos at there that would really mess you up if you put us to the breaking point.. Let me ask you this, how can you justify this whole Terri case and yet your happy pappy asses are the ones defending that serial killers and rapists not be given the death penalty? Did Terri rape anyone? Did she kill children mercisly? No, and yet she's had to endure more then any man-made demon we've had to hear about.

I hate being called a liberal, cause I get put in the same category as these sick twisted idiotic freaks that have no concept of anything and should be put into nazi concentration camps. Ofcourse I guess it's better then being dubbed a conservative which has the stereotype of being a religous zealot who's uptype illogical fallacies is the reason these Frankenstiens were created to begin with. This whole damn country is full of ass-spelunkers. Please, if there is a God up there, Mahamad, Buddha, Rick James.. ANYTHING... have Koriea bomb us, bomb us good, and rip us from the history books, only then can I leave this plain in peace.. :headbang:

what i see here is unbelievable... all the talking is just about money and not about respect for a human being. Everybody is asking "how much" and "whos money" are spent. The question is not about money but about why to keep artificially alive a human being whos brain is already dead and will never come back. Only to be a research case?

Don't be telling me what I support and don't
Let me ask you this, how can you justify this whole Terri case and yet your happy pappy asses are the ones defending that serial killers and rapists not be given the death penalty?
I think gross stupidity resulting in death should get the death penalty.

Even simpler. He could fly her to Oregon, and with his power of attorney, get assisted suicide. They would put the drugs in her feeding tube, and there you go.

Yeah, I wonder how many guys actually have the balls.

Yea that'll be easy to do, Do you realize how hard it would be to re-locate Terri to Oregon just to have her put to rest???

As for that less then animal souless peice of shit, I hope one of these days I am able to get my hands on a gun and have atleast one bullet. I'll find out where that bastard lives, shoot him in the spine so he's paralyzed, then unhook his tube so his ass starves to death. However, not before i stick my dick in his mouth and mutter in his ear (Cause just cause he can't move or talk don't mean he's incapable of understanding..) that this will be his regular proffession in the Hell mouth and that i hope he likes the taste of devil's semen..

Thank you for sharing those lovely thoughts. I'm sure we have more respect for you than ever :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Carbdown
As for that less then animal souless peice of shit, I hope one of these days I am able to get my hands on a gun and have atleast one bullet. I'll find out where that bastard lives, shoot him in the spine so he's paralyzed, then unhook his tube so his ass starves to death. However, not before i stick my dick in his mouth and mutter in his ear (Cause just cause he can't move or talk don't mean he's incapable of understanding..) that this will be his regular proffession in the Hell mouth and that i hope he likes the taste of devil's semen..

So your gay?

So your gay?
We will assume so

it reallly is simple though. she is brian dead, the operative word being dead. finititum she is not coming back. there is nothing we can do to stop it. accept it and move on

if people want to equate her to killing an animal, how bout this: think about anyone who's ever owned a dog. when they get old and pained, they get put to sleep. her brainwaves right now are equal to a jellyfish, wich is none. why give people false hope, regardless of "cost" or anything like that?

This situation may be more nefarious then it appears. I have listed to a couple broadcasts that point out some anti-abortion people are involved (for example the guy that started dominos pizza). It almost appears there is an effort to define the right to live. Such efforts would probably get used in the abortion arguement.

I find it interesting that we without question will end the life of animal on the grounds of pain and suffering and yet a human has to live no matter what.

What is gained by keeping her alive? Most people I know would rather be allowed to die then exist in a life like that.

A medical person do correct me but one thing I "remember" is that when a person is in such a state and is on a feeding tube, they have to administer laxatives to force the other body "functions." Is this living? (Again a medical person correct me if I am wrong).

You have to wonder the intentions when you see government officials attacking the character of the husband.

I for one am having a problem with the government getting involved in the family. What else do we expect them to decide for us?

From what I understand there is no chance of her ever recovering? It would be one thing if Doctors were saying "We don't know" If there was a chance, then sure keep her on the tubes. If there is not, then we should trust the husband’s statement to his wife’s desires

So, the american government can get their arses in gear to save one incapacitated human but cant seem to find the time to plan a war... :confused: kinda like what stalin said... a single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is only statistics.. :headbang:

Originally posted by Black Forrest
I for one am having a problem with the government getting involved in the family. What else do we expect them to decide for us?

This statement is very true. The US Congress should not decide if a braindead women lives or dies.

I sure am impressed the Feds have so much time and money to waste on feeding tube decissions and steroids in baseball. Wouldn't it be awesome if all that energy and resources could be directed to high gas cost, health care, alcohol addiction, etc.,? I quess as long as we have Vietn.., I mean Iraq to divert our attention, folks get to watch American Idiot and have their pizza delivered on time, no one really gives a shit anymore. :mp5:

So, the american government can get their arses in gear to save one incapacitated human but cant seem to find the time to plan a war... :confused: kinda like what stalin said... a single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is only statistics.. :headbang:
Or it is kind of like how the president and Congress will move heaven and earth to make sure a human vegetable gets her nutrient tube reconnected but they have no qualms about cutting funds for the food stamp program, and letting the 30 million or so Americans who go hungry every year suffer just a little more.

That reminds me, I would like to move to Oregon if I get Alzheimer's

This statement is very true. The US Congress should not decide if a braindead women lives or dies.
what if the insuarance company makes up all this just for not paying???

You people don't get it. You never have and you never will. This is an invasion of Terri's civil rights, for she never wrote a living will saying she would want the feeding tube removed, and I don't think the word of her husband is good enough to have it removed. Mr. Schiavo has been told to divorce her instead of killing her, but he refuses to do such. I think that since no credible evidence on paper or other such means has she ever said she would want to have the tube removed if she ever reached her current state.

So, the american government can get their arses in gear to save one incapacitated human but cant seem to find the time to plan a war... :confused: kinda like what stalin said... a single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is only statistics.. :headbang:

As I recall, Congress abdicated its war powers decades ago. You know, the Constitution says that only Congress can declare War, but the government back in 1973 did a little dance called the War Powers Act. Essentially an abdication of Congressional power.

Not Bush's fault. And Congress couldn't plan any of the war, because they weren't a part of the planning.

I sure am impressed the Feds have so much time and money to waste on feeding tube decissions and steroids in baseball. Wouldn't it be awesome if all that energy and resources could be directed to high gas cost, health care, alcohol addiction, etc.,? I quess as long as we have Vietn.., I mean Iraq to divert our attention, folks get to watch American Idiot and have their pizza delivered on time, no one really gives a shit anymore. :mp5:
it's exactly how it looks from here... i'm in Romania and i can see it from "outside" so to speak

The gist: The PRESIDENT has signed a FEDERAL ORDER, nay, a LAW, a fucking LAW, to keep this woman's feeding tube in because her parents can't get the fuck over the facts that they are no longer her legal guardians and she is brain dead.

No, he didn't. He signed a law sending the case to federal court so they could review it. The decision by a federal judge on that matter is this afternoon (US time).

Try reading for once, okay?

The slightly more significant point in all of this is that it has been litigated to death in the florida courts, and not once did they rule in favor of the parents. In spite of this, Congress took it upon itself to, in essence, invalidate the entire set of court rulings from the state of florida and the SCOTUS. That's what's wrong with all of this.

No, he didn't. He signed a law sending the case to federal court so they could review it. The decision by a federal judge on that matter is this afternoon (US time).

Try reading for once, okay?

A Federal judge could rule it all unconstitutional, you know.

Originally posted by Micutu
what if the insuarance company makes up all this just for not paying???

That's not a very likely situation.

No, he didn't. He signed a law sending the case to federal court so they could review it. The decision by a federal judge on that matter is this afternoon (US time).

Try reading for once, okay?
OK fair enough, but still, why is this in Congress even

You people don't get it. You never have and you never will. This is an invasion of Terri's civil rights, for she never wrote a living will saying she would want the feeding tube removed, and I don't think the word of her husband is good enough to have it removed. Mr. Schiavo has been told to divorce her instead of killing her, but he refuses to do such. I think that since no credible evidence on paper or other such means has she ever said she would want to have the tube removed if she ever reached her current state.
did you, or anybody here write such a thing???? Maybe they just talked it over a TV movie or something like this. For example, I told my wife years ago something about a similar situation.... but never wrote it.

You people don't get it. You never have and you never will. This is an invasion of Terri's civil rights, for she never wrote a living will saying she would want the feeding tube removed, and I don't think the word of her husband is good enough to have it removed. Mr. Schiavo has been told to divorce her instead of killing her, but he refuses to do such. I think that since no credible evidence on paper or other such means has she ever said she would want to have the tube removed if she ever reached her current state.

Are you married?

People usually tend to tell their spouses what they would like. People also tend to put off doing things like living wills.

How many people here have one?

You people don't get it. You never have and you never will. This is an invasion of Terri's civil rights, for she never wrote a living will saying she would want the feeding tube removed, and I don't think the word of her husband is good enough to have it removed. Mr. Schiavo has been told to divorce her instead of killing her, but he refuses to do such. I think that since no credible evidence on paper or other such means has she ever said she would want to have the tube removed if she ever reached her current state.
Wait a second. In this post I used civil rights to help support my view.

As a conservative I have never used such before.

Wait a second. In this post I used civil rights to help support my view.

As a conservative I have never used such before.
You have become everything you hate pinko!

Are you married?

People usually tend to tell their spouses what they would like. People also tend to put off doing things like living wills.

How many people here have one?
People only know that when they love there spouses, and this man, who is having an affair currently, doesn't seem to care. By the way, I'm not married, I'm 13 years old.

You have become everything you hate pinko!
No what my point there was that even what the liberals uphold the most they are violating in order to kill this woman.

Originally Posted by Holy Paradise
You people don't get it. You never have and you never will. This is an invasion of Terri's civil rights, for she never wrote a living will saying she would want the feeding tube removed, and I don't think the word of her husband is good enough to have it removed. Mr. Schiavo has been told to divorce her instead of killing her, but he refuses to do such. I think that since no credible evidence on paper or other such means has she ever said she would want to have the tube removed if she ever reached her current state.

look, Terri's no more aware of her surroundings than a rock, and there's medical proof I'm right. Any noise or glance she makes has nothing to do with her noticing anything, it's just a random thing. The only reason Congress is trying so hard to keep Terri alive is because Republicans think they will rouse their pro-life supporters, period.

Are you married?

People usually tend to tell their spouses what they would like. People also tend to put off doing things like living wills.

How many people here have one?

Yes. We're completely covered from the will angle. This would not occur with us.

Additionally, we've already talked out a variety of situations with our relatives, and sent them copies of the wills, explaining each of the possible scenarios and conditions.

OK fair enough, but still, why is this in Congress even
At least its more important than that pointless Congressional hearing on baseball and steroids. What the hell was that anyway? My God, that's all they had on on CNN, Fox News, and so on. That hearing was probably the most pointless and stupid thing done by Congress.

Sigh, what a sad state of affairs this is.

Without addressing the specific case, let's just say how disturbing it is that the Federal government has used it powers to assert itself into the private affairs of an American citizen. The Legislative and Executive branches of the federal government had no right to become involved in this matter. The judicial branch has had ample time to make the decisions and they have done such. The US Supreme Court has sent the case back to the lower courts to decide and they have done so. What right does the president and the Republican members (as well as the few Democrats who voted in favor) have to involve themselves in the private lives of a citizen when the judicial has already made the decisions?

What is next? Once the precedent is set, the legislative and executive branch can then impugn upon the rights of private citizens throughout our great nation. Should the president be allowed to tell your family that your will is not valid because they feel a "moral obligation" to not allow your wishes to be granted?

Nineteen American courts have heard the argument already. They have sided with the husband in this setting. The law is on the husband's side. Like it or not, the parents are no longer the legal guardians of their daughter. They lost the right of guardianship upon her turning the age of 18. When their daughter married Mr. Schiavo, he assumed said guardianship should anything regrettable happen. The courts have never said that he's done anything wrong. He wasn't at fault for what has happened. And despite what some (like Eutrusca) have said about Mr. Schiavo, I wonder how you would handle such a situation? His wife has been in a vegitative state for 15 years. Some say that he should have said something from day 1 about her wishes. Have you taken the time to think that he was holding out all hope, despite the odds, of his wife recovering? When it finally dawned on him that he was grasping at straws, he might have accepted the reality of the situation, something that the parents in this case have not done yet. Mr. Schiavo is at fault for finding a girlfriend and moving on with his life and starting a family, something he would have preferred to do with his wife had she been capable?

It appears that the only thing Mr. Schiavo is at fault of is that he does not come off well when on the camera. I wonder how many people in his situation would do any better. He's been fighting for the wishes of his wife for 15 years, it might wear on a person after so long.

Addressing the specific case. Mrs. Schiavo was suffering from bullimia, which deprives the heart of potassium, thereby weakening it. It is a wretched and horrible situation that I would not wish upon my worst enemy. Some argue that since she's not suffering, she should be allowed to remain alive through the use of the feeding tubes. Why? So her parents will never be able to mourn their daughter? We talk back and forth about the rights of the husband versus the rights of the parents. What about the rights of the central party? As no one has been able to prove she hasn't said she wouldn't want to go through this, are we not then trampling her own rights? The rights to die with dignity instead of having her body held together by a machine that will never allow her the opportunity to live a productive life.

The law clearly favors the husband. The courts have repeatedly backed this law. We may morally object to allowing a life to end with dignity instead of keeping her alive (expenses notwithstanding) through the use of machines. But that's part of America. Our moral objections do not govern another citizen's right to a dignified life. Those who continue to state that it wouldn't do any harm to allow this woman to continue on in such a state are missing the larger picture, however tragic they may feel this case is.

This woman will never recover. Some continue to claim she feels no pain. However, that may not necessarily be the case. The parts of the brain that control functions such as autonomic responses (I.E. reacting to a balloon that is a shiny color) also has a great deal to do with the feeling of pain. Pain can be an autonomic response and has part of its stimulus in the cerebellum, the part of Mrs. Schiavo's brain that still functions. Claiming that she is not suffering is therefore not a valid argument. Mrs. Schiavo may have lived the last 15 years of her life in immense pain. She may continue to suffer for 15 more if those who have no legal sayso in her life have their way. No one will ever know because she can not tell us what she is experiencing.

Should we keep this woman alive simply to placate our own feelings of moral superiority or so we can simply sleep better tonight? Should we keep this woman alive simply so we can claim to have been true to our own beliefs, despite that person's wishes to the contrary? What is the true moral decision here?

No what my point there was that even what the liberals uphold the most they are violating in order to kill this woman.
That is bullshit, more fallical, loaded commentary from the right to try and pointlessly attack the other side

At least its more important than that pointless Congressional hearing on baseball and steroids. What the hell was that anyway? My God, that's all they had on on CNN, Fox News, and so on. That hearing was probably the most pointless and stupid thing done by Congress.
Can I get an Amen!

1. She isn't brain dead, her family says she's responsive, maybe not as well as you or me, but she isn't dying nor should she just because her husband says those were her wishes without written evidence.

2. Why not give custody of Terri to her parents, and let this man go on with his life....with his other wife and children?

This case has gone on a long time, and I don't know what I'd do if I was any of these people's shoes, but surely starvation and dehydration can't be the best of choices

So...

"It is necessary to destroy Terry Schaivo, in order to save her."

Hey, it worked in 'Nam...

Yes. We're completely covered from the will angle. This would not occur with us.

Additionally, we've already talked out a variety of situations with our relatives, and sent them copies of the wills, explaining each of the possible scenarios and conditions.
how old are you? I'm 46 and didn't do it. I think it is the human thinking "this will never happen to me"... I think now it should be done.

Bah, the whole war is stupid. Now they think t3h t3Rr0r15t5 are going to attack us from the ocean and destroy our bridges or whatever. Yeah, why didn't they think of that.. like.. ten years ago?!

But as someone who does love a girl, i could never EVER do what that satanic butthole is doing. Infact if I knew my girlfriend was in a vegitable state and couldn't be revived, I'd kill myself before I assited in killing her. I couldn't bare to make that decision, and I couldn't see myself living in this life without her. So suicide would be my only option. But ofcourse this man doesn't think like that, hell i doubt he even bleeds.

Besides, who would you rather make the rules of such cases? Congress, composed of hundreds of smart individuals who come to an agreement that none fully agree with but it's a decent middle-ground where they negotiate a universal answer.

Or some jerkass judge who thinks they know best?

I'd rather be reliant on a republic then a fascism, I don't know about you..

At least its more important than that pointless Congressional hearing on baseball and steroids. What the hell was that anyway? My God, that's all they had on on CNN, Fox News, and so on. That hearing was probably the most pointless and stupid thing done by Congress.
Yes and no

how old are you? I'm 46 and didn't do it. I think it is the human thinking "this will never happen to me"... I think now it should be done.
44. I had it done when I was in my mid-30s.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7254897/?GT1=6305

The gist: The PRESIDENT has signed a FEDERAL ORDER, nay, a LAW, a fucking LAW, to keep this woman's feeding tube in because her parents can't get the fuck over the facts that they are no longer her legal guardians and she is brain dead.


My favourite quote from one of the dipshits:

Wouldn't whatever amount God gives her require the feeding tube to be removed? I don't think God has any say in the matter when she is being artificially kept alive
You are so right. Gods will has nothing to do with machines. That quote is ridiculous.

You people don't get it. You never have and you never will. This is an invasion of Terri's civil rights, for she never wrote a living will saying she would want the feeding tube removed, and I don't think the word of her husband is good enough to have it removed. Mr. Schiavo has been told to divorce her instead of killing her, but he refuses to do such. I think that since no credible evidence on paper or other such means has she ever said she would want to have the tube removed if she ever reached her current state.
only an extremely small number of people in their 20s have a living will. to be effective a living will has to be specific. as in, "if i am ever in a persistant vegitative state for 15 years with doctors giving me less than .01% chance of recovery, i would like my feeding tube removed so that i might die"

few people under 50 are up for thinking about such eventualities.

as i hear on CNN this afternoon, he is not the only one to have testified that she expressed vocally that she would not want to live this way. (in a way that a 26 year old might express perhaps "i wouldnt want to live on machines")

WHO would want to live this way? no one. its not a life. its some kind of ghost state where she is stuck between life and death for an indeterminable amount of time. 15 year so far, maybe another 30 since if her parents got their way they would go to any extreme to keep her alive (they testified to this).

we all have the right to refuse treatment, her husband is refusing it for her. its not illegal, its not a sin. in the modern world where medicine can keep you going for an obscene amount of time, its a necessary legal right.

That is bullshit, more fallical, loaded commentary from the right to try and pointlessly attack the other side
True, but don't use such strong words when attacking what I said, or you else you are being a hypocrite. Yes, that was a dumb post I typed in.

Anyway, to my opinion, there is no evidence anywhere that she wanted to die if she were in her current state, therefore, she shouldn't die. I mean, think about it, if you were critically injured in some event and could not function on your own, but were still alive, doesn't it scare you that someone might try to pull the plug on you? God, the thought scares me.

OK fair enough, but still, why is this in Congress even

Because a majority of the elected officals in the building felt like things needed to be moved to another court to protect her rights involved. Granted, Rep. Frank made an excellent argument it shouldn't have gone that far, but it did. In my mind, however, do I want a government eager to dispense death, or would I prefer one that would err on the side of life on an individual level? If I have to have those two choices, I'll take life any day. I'd prefer the Government not butt in, or require people to have a written will perhaps. But I don't have that, so I personally prefer one that'll err on the side of safety.

Just think: one simple piece of paper and this wouldn't even be a discussion. She'd have been dead years ago.

Now Federal Courts probably won't be as emotionally tied up in the matter as the State Courts have been. They will have a chance to look at it and see if everything is fine or if something needs to be done. They can still rule the lower courts were correct, mind you. This could still all be over this week.

So let's relax and let the lawyers play. Gotta keep 'em out of our hair somehow. :D



Starvation is still a nasty way to die.

Actually SEVERAL doctors has state that she IS in a presisted vegitative state. Which means what you have now, is what your going to get, period.

To be in a vegitative state, you won't have cognitive abilities. She DOES RECOGNIZE when someone enters the room. She DOES SMILE when a family member walks in. She TRIES TO TURN towards the person when they are talking to her.

This doesn't sound like a vegitative state to me. All of this is just now coming out ironically. Didn't hear any of this before but now its coming out and several other doctors say that she ISN"T in a vegitative state.

Originally posted by Proestonia
1. She isn't brain dead, her family says she's responsive, maybe not as well as you or me, but she isn't dying nor should she just because her husband says those were her wishes without written evidence.

2. Why not give custody of Terri to her parents, and let this man go on with his life....with his other wife and children?

This case has gone on a long time, and I don't know what I'd do if I was any of these people's shoes, but surely starvation and dehydration can't be the best of choices

1) She's in a Presistent Vegatative State, she is not responsive. Her parents are hanging onto hopes that she may someday recover, but she won't.

2) Let the man do what his wife wanted.

Terri will feel no pain, she's in PVS.

Sigh, what a sad state of affairs this is.

Without addressing the specific case, let's just say how disturbing it is that the Federal government has used it powers to assert itself into the private affairs of an American citizen. The Legislative and Executive branches of the federal government had no right to become involved in this matter. The judicial branch has had ample time to make the decisions and they have done such. The US Supreme Court has sent the case back to the lower courts to decide and they have done so. What right does the president and the Republican members (as well as the few Democrats who voted in favor) have to involve themselves in the private lives of a citizen when the judicial has already made the decisions?

What is next? Once the precedent is set, the legislative and executive branch can then impugn upon the rights of private citizens throughout our great nation. Should the president be allowed to tell your family that your will is not valid because they feel a "moral obligation" to not allow your wishes to be granted?

Nineteen American courts have heard the argument already. They have sided with the husband in this setting. The law is on the husband's side. Like it or not, the parents are no longer the legal guardians of their daughter. They lost the right of guardianship upon her turning the age of 18. When their daughter married Mr. Schiavo, he assumed said guardianship should anything regrettable happen. The courts have never said that he's done anything wrong. He wasn't at fault for what has happened. And despite what some (like Eutrusca) have said about Mr. Schiavo, I wonder how you would handle such a situation? His wife has been in a vegitative state for 15 years. Some say that he should have said something from day 1 about her wishes. Have you taken the time to think that he was holding out all hope, despite the odds, of his wife recovering? When it finally dawned on him that he was grasping at straws, he might have accepted the reality of the situation, something that the parents in this case have not done yet. Mr. Schiavo is at fault for finding a girlfriend and moving on with his life and starting a family, something he would have preferred to do with his wife had she been capable?

It appears that the only thing Mr. Schiavo is at fault of is that he does not come off well when on the camera. I wonder how many people in his situation would do any better. He's been fighting for the wishes of his wife for 15 years, it might wear on a person after so long.

Addressing the specific case. Mrs. Schiavo was suffering from bullimia, which deprives the heart of potassium, thereby weakening it. It is a wretched and horrible situation that I would not wish upon my worst enemy. Some argue that since she's not suffering, she should be allowed to remain alive through the use of the feeding tubes. Why? So her parents will never be able to mourn their daughter? We talk back and forth about the rights of the husband versus the rights of the parents. What about the rights of the central party? As no one has been able to prove she hasn't said she wouldn't want to go through this, are we not then trampling her own rights? The rights to die with dignity instead of having her body held together by a machine that will never allow her the opportunity to live a productive life.

The law clearly favors the husband. The courts have repeatedly backed this law. We may morally object to allowing a life to end with dignity instead of keeping her alive (expenses notwithstanding) through the use of machines. But that's part of America. Our moral objections do not govern another citizen's right to a dignified life. Those who continue to state that it wouldn't do any harm to allow this woman to continue on in such a state are missing the larger picture, however tragic they may feel this case is.

This woman will never recover. Some continue to claim she feels no pain. However, that may not necessarily be the case. The parts of the brain that control functions such as autonomic responses (I.E. reacting to a balloon that is a shiny color) also has a great deal to do with the feeling of pain. Pain can be an autonomic response and has part of its stimulus in the cerebellum, the part of Mrs. Schiavo's brain that still functions. Claiming that she is not suffering is therefore not a valid argument. Mrs. Schiavo may have lived the last 15 years of her life in immense pain. She may continue to suffer for 15 more if those who have no legal sayso in her life have their way. No one will ever know because she can not tell us what she is experiencing.

Should we keep this woman alive simply to placate our own feelings of moral superiority or so we can simply sleep better tonight? Should we keep this woman alive simply so we can claim to have been true to our own beliefs, despite that person's wishes to the contrary? What is the true moral decision here? Actually the Executive and Legislative branch do have the right to do such if they disagree with the court system about a private citizen's life. Same with Roe v. Wade, that has to do with private citizens' affairs yet Congress has the right to overturn it. This system is called "checks and balances". I bet you have heard of that. Yeah, it was the idea thought up by the Framers of the Constitution. It is a "must" to have a democratic republic. Also, no where in the Constitution does it directly say that the government cannot interfere with a private citizen's affairs if it concerns the government and does not violate any civil rights. And I don't think that any amendments are being violated in this case.

it reallly is simple though. she is brian dead, the operative word being dead. finititum she is not coming back. there is nothing we can do to stop it. accept it and move on

Look up brain dead in a medical dictionary. Everything I'm seeing and reading points to the fact that she isn't brain dead. To be brain dead you'd have to be in acoma. To be brain dead, you won't be able to move. To be brain dead you wouldn't even know when someone enters the room.

People only know that when they love there spouses, and this man, who is having an affair currently, doesn't seem to care. By the way, I'm not married, I'm 13 years old.

Since you are 13, I will be "nice." ;)

In marriage, you learn your mates desires. You talk about whatifs especially when you hear abou cases like this.

It would be one thing if he was having an affair before the accident.

He has been involved for over 15 years. She is gone and only the body remains.

He needed to move on and so do the parents.

Wouldn't whatever amount God gives her require the feeding tube to be removed? I don't think God has any say in the matter when she is being artificially kept alive

By this logic do you also oppose the use of incubators for premature babies? After all they would die if it were not for the machines in almost all cases.

Actually the Executive and Legislative branch do have the right to do such if they disagree with the court system about a private citizen's life. Same with Roe v. Wade, that has to do with private citizens' affairs yet Congress has the right to overturn it. This system is called "checks and balances". I bet you have heard of that. Yeah, it was the idea thought up by the Framers of the Constitution. It is a "must" to have a democratic republic. Also, no where in the Constitution does it directly say that the government cannot interfere with a private citizen's affairs if it concerns the government and does not violate any civil rights. And I don't think that any amendments are being violated in this case.
Where on earth did you come up with the idea that the congress alone can overturn Roe?

Um, Corneliu, sorry if this is off topic but Patton actually used the words, "son of a bitch" in place of, "bastard".

Where on earth did you come up with the idea that the congress alone can overturn Roe?
I'm trying to make a point here, but I know they couldn't alone but I'm just making a statement.

1. She isn't brain dead, her family says she's responsive, maybe not as well as you or me, but she isn't dying nor should she just because her husband says those were her wishes without written evidence.

2. Why not give custody of Terri to her parents, and let this man go on with his life....with his other wife and children?

This case has gone on a long time, and I don't know what I'd do if I was any of these people's shoes, but surely starvation and dehydration can't be the best of choices

Here here! I agree 100%

Aren't we endowed by our creator with the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness anyways, no matter what state we're in?

As a conservative, I have no problem with the govt stepping in in this case, if Terri truely isn't in a persistant vegetative state, nor is she dying, she shouldn't deserve death through starvation, no matter how glamorous the New York Times makes it out to be.

Again, I don't know what I would personally do in the shoes of any of these people, but surely death isn't the acceptable alternative.

Aren't we endowed by our creator with the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness anyways, no matter what state we're in?

As a conservative, I have no problem with the govt stepping in in this case, if Terri truely isn't in a persistant vegetative state, nor is she dying, she shouldn't deserve death through starvation, no matter how glamorous the New York Times makes it out to be.

Again, I don't know what I would personally do in the shoes of any of these people, but surely death isn't the acceptable alternative.
Not. If. You're. Dead.

Not. If. You're. Dead.
But she isn't dead! Her heart is still beating, so therefore, she is not dead. You are making it seem as though Terri is just a dead corpse on a bed, but she isn't, therefore, she is not dead.

1) She's in a Presistent Vegatative State, she is not responsive. Her parents are hanging onto hopes that she may someday recover, but she won't.

2) Let the man do what his wife wanted.

Terri will feel no pain, she's in PVS.

The human body is an amazing thing. It is regenerative. She could very well recover but it'll take years! Doctors just don't know.

By this logic do you also oppose the use of incubators for premature babies? After all they would die if it were not for the machines in almost all cases.

Premature babies have a chance of living a "normal" life. This woman will never recover as I understand.

By this logic do you also oppose the use of incubators for premature babies? After all they would die if it were not for the machines in almost all cases.
*smack*

its a matter of "to what end?"

a premature baby in an incubator will LIVE. of course you treat them

on ocassion a premature baby is born so damaged that they will not survive and in that case it is ok FOR THE FAMILY to decide to not use an incubator to prolong their short lives.

the decision is up to the family in those cases.

it would be wrong for the state to decide to remove ms schiavo from her feeding tube. for her husband to make the decision is perfectly fine. that her parents objected and it had to be reviewed by the courts makes it even more OK.

By this logic do you also oppose the use of incubators for premature babies? After all they would die if it were not for the machines in almost all cases.
Nice try at attacking my opinion, too bad you are attacking a comment I made on some idiot's quote, not my actual opinion. Sorry, try again.

She has a small chance of survival, but then theres' the chance of great pain on both her, her parents and her husband in order to get it.

If she is as much of a vegetable as people say, then for once, just for once, do the right thing, let her die as quickly and painlessly as possible.

If she can see she can feel pain, but if she can't do much else then why prolong it?

I errr on the side of caution, but I feel that her husband is closer to the moral grounds on this one.

The human body is an amazing thing. It is regenerative. She could very well recover but it'll take years! Doctors just don't know.

In the area of comas sure.

However, from what I understand the Docs are saying it will never happen. I haven't heard any say she could recover or even we don't know.

The human body is an amazing thing. It is regenerative. She could very well recover but it'll take years! Doctors just don't know.
Sorry but brain cells don't grow back.

On the one hand, her husband claims that she would not want to be kept alive by “artificial” means. On the other hand, he managed to prevent any medical testimony as to her ability to swallow on her own. This is circular reasoning. If she would not want to have a feeding tube, then why should he supress the truth as to whether or not she actually needs one? Unless of course he wants her dead so that he can marry someone else and get on with his life at the expense of her.

So, in closing: I know for a fact that everyone posting in this thread would not want to be artificially kept alive. I base this fact on the conversations that I had with each and every one of you, the existence of which are rather dubious, but hey, we can let that slide. It goes without saying that forks, knives, spoons, plates, drinking tumblers, straws, chopsticks, bowls, mugs, bottles, and all such instruments are artificial means of eating, since obviously the only way God intended for people to eat was with their fingers. I further will engage any and every one of you in a legal battle to ensure that you are legally declared incapable of eating with your fingers, whether or not it is true. I hereby call upon the Judicial Branch of NationStates to remove all access to said eating instruments of artifical means, and further shall prevent any access to food so that nobody can attempt to eat with their fingers, since you have already been proven to be incapable of it. You will all die shortly. Have a nice life.

/sarcasm

Um, Corneliu, sorry if this is off topic but Patton actually used the words, "son of a bitch" in place of, "bastard".

I like the word bastard better. I do know he said Son of a bitch but I do like the word bastard better.

Premature babies have a chance of living a "normal" life. This woman will never recover as I understand.

She may and she may not. The human body is amazing and it does regenerate. She can have therapy to feed herself again, or so I've heard.

Originally posted by Corneliu
The human body is an amazing thing. It is regenerative. She could very well recover but it'll take years! Doctors just don't know.

After 3 months, NO person has ever recovered from a persistant vegatative state, EVER. It would take beyond a miracle to save her. People have been making the desicion to remove feeding tubes for 20 years privately, and that shouldn't change now.

In the area of comas sure.

However, from what I understand the Docs are saying it will never happen. I haven't heard any say she could recover or even we don't know.

Then explain to me why some doctors are saying that she could learn to feed herself with therapy?

I like the word bastard better. I do know he said Son of a bitch but I do like the word bastard better.

Ahh but you are misquoting him.

I think in the movie, they did use bastard so it would be correct to reference the movie.

Sorry but brain cells don't grow back.

The Brain bypasses the damaged areas. Its nerves. Nerves do regenerate. She is brain damaged but not brain dead.

Then explain to me why some doctors are saying that she could learn to feed herself with therapy?

Therapy works if the mind is working. More then one news agency has reported her a veg. If the brain is gone, therapy will not work.

Which news agency did you hear those docs arguing that?

The Brain bypasses the damaged areas. Its nerves. Nerves do regenerate. She is brain damaged but not brain dead.
Biology is not my strong suit, but from what I understand most of her brain have simply dissolved, and those areas of her skull are simply filled with spinal fluid which I would think rule out any possibilty no matter how remote of any sort of rehabilitation

Therapy works if the mind is working. More then one news agency has reported her a veg. If the brain is gone, therapy will not work.

Which news agency did you hear those docs arguing that?

Actually, all over the place! Its amazing how much info you can get isn't it? Her mind IS WORKING! She's BRAIN DAMAGED but NOT brain dead. Listen to all sides and not just one. I've been listening to both the parents and the husband and frankly, I do believe that she isn't as vegitative as people claim she is. Of course, I'm not a doctor. My opinion doesn't count and neither do any one else's. Doctors are split on this issue.

Then explain to me why some doctors are saying that she could learn to feed herself with therapy?

Because when you really want to beleive something, you can always find other people that will agree with you. It's true in any sort of field. The doctors that were chosen by the court (and not by her parents or husband), have all said that she will never get any better.

But she isn't dead! Her heart is still beating, so therefore, she is not dead. You are making it seem as though Terri is just a dead corpse on a bed, but she isn't, therefore, she is not dead.
Dead is a funny term. He has no higher brain function, so she is no more alive...then an ant. So in the best terms, she is no longer a living member of homo sapiens- for all intents and purposes dead.

This woman could no more feed herself than a 2 month old

Originally posted by Corneliu
Actually, all over t he place! Its amazing how much info you can get isn't it? Her mind IS WORKING! She's BRAIN DAMAGED but NOT brain dead. Listen to all sides and not just one. I've been listening to both the parents and the husband and frankly, I do believe that she isn't as vegitative as people claim she is. Of course, I'm not a doctor. My opinion doesn't count and neither do any one else's. Doctors are split on this issue.

For goodness sakes man, she's been in the same state for 15 years, she won't get better. :(

Actually, all over the place! Its amazing how much info you can get isn't it? Her mind IS WORKING! She's BRAIN DAMAGED but NOT brain dead. Listen to all sides and not just one. I've been listening to both the parents and the husband and frankly, I do believe that she isn't as vegitative as people claim she is. Of course, I'm not a doctor. My opinion doesn't count and neither do any one else's. Doctors are split on this issue.

Ahh thank you for reminding me why I left.

Tootles.

Biology is not my strong suit, but from what I understand most of her brain have simply dissolved, and those areas of her skull are simply filled with spinal fluid which I would think rule out any possibilty no matter how remote of any sort of rehabilitation

Here's a question for you and one that I don't think has been answered!

Why did her husband refuse therapy for her? It would've helped her recovery but no he refused! Why?

This woman could no more feed herself than a 2 month old
How many people do you hear asking to have their 2-month-old starved and dehydrated because he or she cannot eat without help?

The Brain bypasses the damaged areas. Its nerves. Nerves do regenerate. She is brain damaged but not brain dead.


You're mistaken, she is brain dead.

Here's a question for you and one that I don't think has been answered!

Why did her husband refuse therapy for her? It would've helped her recovery but no he refused! Why?
Show.

How many people do you hear asking to have their 2-month-old starved and dehydrated because he or she cannot eat without help?
How many two month old kids can't swallow water after 15 years?

How many people do you hear asking to have their 2-month-old starved and dehydrated because he or she cannot eat without help?
How many two month olds are still two months old after 15 years?

Dead is a funny term. He has no higher brain function, so she is no more alive...then an ant. So in the best terms, she is no longer a living member of homo sapiens- for all intents and purposes dead.

Hmm yet she can recognize someone as they enter the room, smile, turning to face her and does try to communicate.

Yea! I bet if you give her Therapy, though she is brain damaged, she can still lead a life.

Hmm yet she can recognize someone as they enter the room, smile, turning to face her and does try to communicate.

Yea! I bet if you give her Therapy, though she is brain damaged, she can still lead a life.
I saw one of those videos, it's random response

Originally posted by Corneliu
Why did her husband refuse therapy for her? It would've helped her recovery but no he refused! Why?

Therapy would be useless, she's in a PRESISTANT vegatative state.
It will presist for ever and ever, therapy won't help.

Here, if this doesn't give a little proof that this woman doesn't deserve death nor that she is dead or in a persistant vegetative state, nothing will.

http://cogforlife.org/schiavoweller.htm

This is an account by Terri's legal team, Barbara Weller, about her last visit with Terri on the 18th of March, you might have to copy and paste it to get it to show up.

Abstract Appeal (http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html)

You're mistaken, she is brain dead.

Hmm no she isn't.

TAMPA, Florida (CNN) -- Legal arguments began Monday afternoon in a federal court in the Terri Schiavo case after her parents petitioned to have the brain-damaged woman's feeding tube reinserted.

Nice try at attacking my opinion, too bad you are attacking a comment I made on some idiot's quote, not my actual opinion. Sorry, try again.

You said in your first post

Wouldn't whatever amount God gives her require the feeding tube to be removed?

Thereby implying that you beleieve people should not be kept artifically alive. If thats the case, you should also believe that babies born premeaturely too weak to survive were it not for an incubator should not be given an incubator. As thats keeping them artifically alive.

Originally posted by Proestonia
Here, if this doesn't give a little proof that this woman doesn't deserve death nor that she is dead or in a vegetative state, nothing will.

http://cogforlife.org/schiavoweller.htm

This is an account by Terri's legal team, Barbara Weller, about her last visit with Terri on the 18th of March, you might have to copy and paste it to get it to show up.

Do you have any clue why she wrote this article, to sway people in her favor by over-exaggerating events and twistings actual random noices and such into her own little responses.

IF she is so fine she needs to be removed from the hospital and her parents can care for her 24/7 and pay for any other mdecial care, because that will be the required state of affairs

Here, if this doesn't give a little proof that this woman doesn't deserve death nor that she is dead or in a persistant vegetative state, nothing will.

http://cogforlife.org/schiavoweller.htm

This is an account by Terri's legal team, Barbara Weller, about her last visit with Terri on the 18th of March, you might have to copy and paste it to get it to show up.

This is biased, she probably wrote this to help her case.

You said in your first post



Thereby implying that you beleieve people should not be kept artifically alive. If thats the case, you should also believe that babies born premeaturely too weak to survive were it not for an incubator should not be given an incubator. As thats keeping them artifically alive.
You do realise you are attacking a comment I made on a person's quote which solely pertained to the man's quote and has nothing to do with my opinion one way or another?

Because when you really want to beleive something, you can always find other people that will agree with you. It's true in any sort of field. The doctors that were chosen by the court (and not by her parents or husband), have all said that she will never get any better.

I've heard docs say that someone will not get any better and the patient does. It does happen. Its rare but it does happen.

To tell u the truth i have only read a few post as they were to many for me....

I think they shoud let her die... i mean come on every 1 says "let her live" "she have rights" ... frankly i rather die insted of living my life with no more movement than a rock...
Im just faking sick of ppl giving their opinion of what shoud be or not be done i mean come on lets just be real the woman wanst to die let her die...

Im not from EE.UU so really i dont give a shit i just give my point of view.. (wich is kind of stupid as i have just said im sick of thad :P )

Do you have any clue why she wrote this article, to sway people in her favor by over-exaggerating events and twistings actual random noices and such into her own little responses.

But how do you know that, how do we not know whether or not this woman was giving an honest account, I haven't been to Florida to see Ms. Schiavo myself, and I doubt you have either, and furthermore, why the eagerness to end this woman's life? was there this kind of eagerness when Christopher Reeves had his accident, well, he couln't walk, he couldn't breathe without assisstance, sure he was cognitive, but "was that the life he would have wanted to live?"

But how do you know that, how do we not know whether or not this woman was giving an honest account, I haven't been to Florida to see Ms. Schiavo myself, and I doubt you have either, and furthermore, why the eagerness to end this woman's life? was there this kind of eagerness when Christopher Reeves had his accident, well, he couln't walk, he couldn't breathe without assisstance, sure he was cognitive, but "was that the life he would have wanted to live?"
http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=creeve

You do realise you are attacking a comment I made on a person's quote which solely pertained to the man's quote and has nothing to do with my opinion one way or another?

You can only attack a quote if your opinon disagrees with it. There is very little point in attacking something you agree with. If your opinion agrees with what that person was saying then why attack it.

Like I said, if you disagree with the quote which said that

I’m overjoyed to see the vote and see Terri’s life extended by whatever amount God gives her

And you attacked this quote, believing that

whatever amount God gives her require the feeding tube to be removed

Ergo by attacking that POV, you demonstrate your own. Unless you were lying. You cannot attack one persons view when your view is the same as theirs.

But how do you know that, how do we not know whether or not this woman was giving an honest account, I haven't been to Florida to see Ms. Schiavo myself, and I doubt you have either, and furthermore, why the eagerness to end this woman's life? was there this kind of eagerness when Christopher Reeves had his accident, well, he couln't walk, he couldn't breathe without assisstance, sure he was cognitive, but "was that the life he would have wanted to live?"

We know this because it was written by Terri's parents LAWYER! Like I said, this is biased. Now if we can get a doctor to go in (a new one) and give his account I'll read that. As for Christopher Reeves, he could talk, so I'd imagine he expressed his wish to live. That is completely diffrent situation and its a moot point. Mr. Reeve wasn't in a PVS, he was paraylized by a gunshot.

You can only attack a quote if your opinon disagrees with it. There is very little point in attacking something you agree with. If your opinion agrees with what that person was saying then why attack it.

No, you can attack quotes if they are abbrasive to logic, which that quote was.

In SUPPORT of ARTIFICIALLY keeping some one alive, he stated that she should be able to live as long as God wants her to.

How many two month old kids can't swallow water after 15 years?
Ah. I understand. Your logic is that the two-month-old is not yet human, and the only reason to not blow its brains out is that it will become a human by the time it is 15 years old.

Ah. I understand. Your logic is that the two-month-old is not yet human, and the only reason to not blow its brains out is that it will become a human by the time it is 15 years old.
When lacking a logical debate: remove intelligent commentary, replace with loaded comparisons

Orignlly posted by Proestonia
But how do you know that, how do we not know whether or not this woman was giving an honest account, I haven't been to Florida to see Ms. Schiavo myself, and I doubt you have either, and furthermore, why the eagerness to end this woman's life? was there this kind of eagerness when Christopher Reeves had his accident, well, he couln't walk, he couldn't breathe without assisstance, sure he was cognitive, but "was that the life he would have wanted to live?"

Your argument makes no sense. Terri Shaivo and Chris Reeve's situations are completely different.

No, you can attack quotes if they are abbrasive to logic, which that quote was.

In SUPPORT of ARTIFICIALLY keeping some one alive, he stated that she should be able to live as long as God wants her to.

Thats not inconsistant. He believes that God wants her to live as long as possible and that she shouldn't be left to die. You are now implieing that God would not want premature children to live if they couldnt be kept alive artifically.

Originally potsed by German Kingdoms
he was paraylized by a gunshot.

He fell off his horse, remember.

Thats not inconsistant. He believes that God wants her to live as long as possible and that she shouldn't be left to die. You are now implieing that God would not want premature children to live if they couldnt be kept alive artifically.
I see you too have resulted to bullshit loaded comparisons that are completely irrelevant. My argument there was with the man's quote, not his opinion.

I will employ the Chewbacca defense.

He fell off his horse, remember.

Oh, which Superman was shot by a gun?

When lacking a logical debate: remove intelligent commentary, replace with loaded comparisons
May I remind you: I am not the one who first compared Ms. Schiavo to a 2-month-old.

I should say the same to you. Where is the logic in saying that the only reason that Ms. Schiavo does not deserve to live and that a 2-month-old does is that the 2-month-old will be able to swallow water in 15 years? Or, as you so eloquently put it, still be 2 months old?

If the 2-month-old deserves to live, then he or she will still deserve to live after 15 years, even if he or she is still a 2-month-old.

What bothers me so much about this isn't even the question of whether Euthanasia is right or wrong.

It's that fact that the US congress can throw an emergency session together to deal with one woman (who doesn't even know about the controversy surrounding her), while every day people who die and suffer from poverty, persecution, and war are ignored because they're too busy or don't want to deal with it.

http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=creeve
Pure comedy gold. It is like how we are all supposed to think Magic Johnson is a big hero because he slept with thousands of women without protection and is now dying of AIDs and we are all supposed to think he is a great guy for speaking out about a disease which he gave himself through his own actions.

May I remind you: I am not the one who first compared Ms. Schiavo to a 2-month-old.

I should say the same to you. Where is the logic in saying that the only reason that Ms. Schiavo does not deserve to live and that a 2-month-old does is that the 2-month-old will be able to swallow water in 15 years? Or, as you so eloquently put it, still be 2 months old?

If the 2-month-old deserves to live, then he or she will still deserve to live after 15 years, even if he or she is still a 2-month-old.
No but your argument is based solely on that comparison. I was using a simile (which, might I add, did NOT compare Shiavo directly to a two year old but rather their abilities in a single area). You are using a bait and switch. Hey look here's Terri Shiavo and HERE'S A BABY! LOOK LOOK, SHIAVO - BABY!

Now that I think about, she could have equally been trying to say I want to die, it's not really conclusive proof if it really happened as a non-random event

Your argument makes no sense. Terri Shaivo and Chris Reeve's situations are completely different.

I was comparing the fact that these people ended up in near or a vegetative state and no doubt wouldn't have wanted to live the lives they are in or were, but Reeves argument is kinda irrevelant, since he's passed on. But still, this seems to me the only time libs support death, not in war, not in criminal punishment, but when it comes to an innocent woman who's brain damaged, she can't be dead fast enough.

Now that I think about, she could have equally been trying to say I want to die, it's not really conclusive proof if it really happened as a non-random event

You know, in Million Dollar Baby, the coach gave the girl boxer a shot when she didn't want to live any more. I wish someone would just give Terri the same shot so we can just get this done and over with.

Originally posted by German Kingdoms
Oh, which Superman was shot by a gun?

Got no clue

I was comparing the fact that these people ended up in near or a vegetative state and no doubt wouldn't have wanted to live the lives they are in or were, but Reeves argument is kinda irrevelant, since he's passed on. But still, this seems to me the only time libs support death, not in war, not in criminal punishment, but when it comes to an innocent woman who's brain damaged, she can't be dead fast enough.
Libs? Are you seriously calling the SCOTUS liberal?

What is so bad about this? There is no proof that she would want to die if she was ever in a vegetative state, otherwise this case would've been over years ago.

Her parents want to keep her alive, and that is all what matters. What right does the husband have to dictate if she should live or die, to me as long as a close family member wants to keep her alive, so be it.

I am disgusted that Bush would have to sign a bill, for something as stupid as this, Leave her alone, how is the Husband gonna be hurt? Her parents would be hurt far more than the husband ever could.

Still at the end, i am happy this is over with and maybe the idiot husband will leave those kinds of decisions to her actual loved ones.

I was comparing the fact that these people ended up in near or a vegetative state and no doubt wouldn't have wanted to live the lives they are in or were, but Reeves argument is kinda irrevelant, since he's passed on. But still, this seems to me the only time libs support death, not in war, not in criminal punishment, but when it comes to an innocent woman who's brain damaged, she can't be dead fast enough.
Ooh ooh, Here's a thought oh wise one. Maybe the "libs" are trying to fight agaisnt big government that shouldn't be involved in this matter, but oh wait, the libs are supposedly for big, intrusive government. Funny how its the Republicans and conservatives who want to tell you how to live your personal life while villifying the other side over too big of a government

This is what you said:
This woman could no more feed herself than a 2 month old
Fine. Shall we try this again? I *KNOW* the comparison was incomplete. I am not stupid. I am trying to get you to make it more complete.

WHY does the baby deserve to live and Ms. Schiavo not?
I have already mentioned one reason that someone gave: The baby will be able to drink by itself in 15 years. That choice of arguments went down in flames and you (rather predictably) went up in a huff over it.

Oh, which Superman was shot by a gun?
George Reeves was killed by a gunshot.

Originally Posted by Proestonia
I was comparing the fact that these people ended up in near or a vegetative state and no doubt wouldn't have wanted to live the lives they are in or were, but Reeves argument is kinda irrevelant, since he's passed on. But still, this seems to me the only time libs support death, not in war, not in criminal punishment, but when it comes to an innocent woman who's brain damaged, she can't be dead fast enough.

CHristopher Reeves was not in a vegatative state, he could talk, think, debate, tell jokes, receive jokes, love, etc. Reeves was paralyzed, (injured his spinal cord), and was completely responsive.

What is so bad about this? There is no proof that she would want to die if she was ever in a vegetative state, otherwise this case would've been over years ago.

Her parents want to keep her alive, and that is all what matters. What right does the husband have to dictate if she should live or die, to me as long as a close family member wants to keep her alive, so be it.

I am disgusted that Bush would have to sign a bill, for something as stupid as this, Leave her alone, how is the Husband gonna be hurt? Her parents would be hurt far more than the husband ever could.

Still at the end, i am happy this is over with and maybe the idiot husband will leave those kinds of decisions to her actual loved ones.
The fuck of it is that she left no living-will, so bacsically its word against word. The President should stay the hell out of these matters, its a family affair as it stands, not a matter of the state. You implied that he does not love her...sigh.

Actually the Executive and Legislative branch do have the right to do such if they disagree with the court system about a private citizen's life. Same with Roe v. Wade, that has to do with private citizens' affairs yet Congress has the right to overturn it. This system is called "checks and balances". I bet you have heard of that. Yeah, it was the idea thought up by the Framers of the Constitution. It is a "must" to have a democratic republic. Also, no where in the Constitution does it directly say that the government cannot interfere with a private citizen's affairs if it concerns the government and does not violate any civil rights. And I don't think that any amendments are being violated in this case.

You're missing the issue. In Roe vs. Wade, the legislative body, should they repeal the judicial decision, will be doing such against a law, not a person. In the Schiavo situation, the legislative body has intervened to deny the rights of a single individual, not a law. Florida has already stated that this woman has received due process. The Supreme Court chose not to take the case. The legislative body is not challenging a law but rather forming a moral objection. That is completely different than the abortion issue.

Checks and balances are a vital and important part of our system. However, this is neither a check nor a balance but rather an end run around the legal right of an American citizen. And if you take a closer look at the 10th Amendment as well as Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, you may wish tp abridge your statement.

What is so bad about this? There is no proof that she would want to die if she was ever in a vegetative state, otherwise this case would've been over years ago.

Her parents want to keep her alive, and that is all what matters. What right does the husband have to dictate if she should live or die, to me as long as a close family member wants to keep her alive, so be it.

I am disgusted that Bush would have to sign a bill, for something as stupid as this, Leave her alone, how is the Husband gonna be hurt? Her parents would be hurt far more than the husband ever could.

Still at the end, i am happy this is over with and maybe the idiot husband will leave those kinds of decisions to her actual loved ones.

Since when is a husband not a close family member ?

Personally i think it's horendous if parents have to bury their children, no one should have to do that. In this case though, mrs schiavo is not going to recover anymore, let her have her peace and let her die.

This is what you said:

Fine. Shall we try this again? I *KNOW* the comparison was incomplete. I am not stupid. I am trying to get you to make it more complete.

WHY does the baby deserve to live and Ms. Schiavo not?
I have already mentioned one reason that someone gave: The baby will be able to drink by itself in 15 years. That choice of arguments went down in flames and you (rather predictably) went up in a huff over it.
Tha WAS complete. I was comparing her ability to feed herself to the ability of a two month old to feed itself. Please go away, your emotionally loaded arguments have no effect on me and I see right through them, they only serve to make me think less of you

George Reeves was killed by a gunshot.

Are Chris and George related somehow?

Originally posted by Kervoskia
The fuck of it is

Never heard anyone say that before, I like it. *Adding phrase to vocabulary.*