NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

Its not irrelevent

His beleief is that God demands people live as long as possible. That God doesnt want someone to end here life by pulling the plug, or anyone elses life, that life should be preserved as long as possible.

You are attacking his belief, arguing that if people cannot remain allive themselves then they should die

But in that case, why should premature babies in incubatiors should not die as they cannot survive without their machine

Orihginally posted by German Kingdoms
Are Chris and George related somehow?

Nope.

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
My apologies if attempts at rational logic result in a emotional reaction from you. I am sick and tired if having you insult my intelligence just because I believe differently from you. I have not flamed you in any way but have tried to respectfully disagree. I doubt anyone would say that of you.

I will give you this much: You are absolutely right when you say I am having no effect. You are too closed-minded to admit that my arguments have logical basis. So I will give you what you want: goodbye; I will not sit here and debate with your ideas any longer while you on every opportunity attack me personally.

Never heard anyone say that before, I like it. *Adding phrase to vocabulary.*
Thank you, but I can't take credit for it, I think it was someone else on here who invented it, Potaria perhaps.

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.

Your right it's a family affair, that's why i'm pissed that the President should have had to intervene in something as stupid as this. Her parents want her alive, they want to suppport her, then let her live. And i'm sure the husband loves her to some degree, but never the same love you could get from a parent, that would take a bullet for her.

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.

The husband is one, but he sure is not acting like one, Even if i had his opinion, i would still respect the fact, her parents want her alive.

Now let her have peace until she dies. At least her parents will have comfort knowing that despite they have of her being like this, doctors may someday find a way to semi-recessitate her.

Its not irrelevent

His beleief is that God demands people live as long as possible. That God doesnt want someone to end here life by pulling the plug, or anyone elses life, that life should be preserved as long as possible.

You are attacking his belief, arguing that if people cannot remain allive themselves then they should die

But in that case, why should premature babies in incubatiors should not die as they cannot survive without their machine
They shouldn't. That's the entire point of this extended metaphor, the bible thumping right loudly supports cases like this, yet dislikes machinery and 'messing with god's will'.

Originally posted by Kervoskia
Thank you, but I can't take credit for it, I think it was someone else on here who invented it, Potaria perhaps.

Fuck is such a versitile word, and it sounds great when said too.
Best curse word ever.

BTW, polling result on this:
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/978a1Schiavo.pdf
Removal of feeding tube

Support 63
Oppose 28

Federal Intervention

Support 35
Oppose 60

Appropriate for Congress to get involved?

Appropriate 27
Not Appropriate 70

Reason political leaders are trying to keep Shiavo alive

Concern about Shiavo 19
Political Advantage 67

Human life is held to a ridiculously high level on sanctity.

Thats the most gay shit I have ever heard. EVER! HUMAN LIFE CAN'T BE HELD TOO HIGH!

Icky commie.

Your link sucks CSW.

Its not irrelevent

His beleief is that God demands people live as long as possible. That God doesnt want someone to end here life by pulling the plug, or anyone elses life, that life should be preserved as long as possible.

You are attacking his belief, arguing that if people cannot remain allive themselves then they should die

But in that case, why should premature babies in incubatiors should not die as they cannot survive without their machine
If people should remain alive or not is completely irrelevant from my comment. Your entire argument is emotionally based trying to elicist an emotional response from me, you have no logical basis. And that is all without considering the fact your entire attack on me is irrelevant to my comment

I don't give a shit about babies, stop employing stupid logical fallacies as the basis for your argument

Your link sucks CSW.
My link to ABC sucks?

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.
He attacks just to be attacking. I suspect he's the reincarnation of the infamous ChessSquares, who took an instant dislike to me for reasons known only to him, her, or it. Either way, This "I Hate Cows" person is irrational, argumentative and just downright mean. I suggest ignoring him, her, it.

This argument is not about babies nor is it related to babies. It is about a woman in Florida who is severely brain damaged and has not improved in 15 years, nay, it isn't even about that. The topic is about the federal government interfering in this case and why that is uncalled for.

Premature babies are placed in incubators as a replacement for the womb as they very well can't be put back there. They are put in them to tide them over until they are well developed enough to go back home, not be kept in them permanently

Originally posted by CSW
My link to ABC sucks?

It ain't a workin on my computater, I can't put it in no simpler than that.

If people should remain alive or not is completely irrelevant from my comment. Your entire argument is emotionally based trying to elicist an emotional response from me, you have no logical basis. And that is all without considering the fact your entire attack on me is irrelevant to my comment

I don't give a shit about babies, stop employing stupid logical fallacies as the basis for your argument

Its not a logical falacy. Look carefully and you will see why. In your attack on that persons quote you basicly expressed the opinion that God would not want people to live if they could not live on their own but are kept alive artifically. If thats the truth then it must be aplied across the board. Ergo you must apply it to the premature babies who cannot suvive without their incubatior machines. So I ask you, do you support the notion of people who cannot suvive naturally but only must be kept alive artifically being left to die across the board. Because if you dont you are being selective in your opinions.

It ain't a workin on my computater, I can't put it in no simpler than that.
.pdf.

This argument is not about babies nor is it related to babies. It is about a woman in Florida who is severely brain damaged and has not improved in 15 years, nay, it isn't even about that. The topic is about the federal government interfering in this case and why that is uncalled for.

Premature babies are placed in incubators as a replacement for the womb as they very well can't be put back there. They are put in them to tide them over until they are well developed enough to go back home, not be kept in them permanently

IT IS A PRINICIPAL

You are arguing for the principal that those who cannot live without artificall support should be left to die

Premature babies cannot live without artifical support so is it fair to let them die in the same way that it is fair to let this women die

If you cant apply the pricipal across the board, it isnt a propper principal.

The comparison to a premature baby is absurd. A baby's brain and body has the potential to grow and develop while in an incubator. The incubator, while sustaining life, is also working to enable the premature baby to live independently of the machine. The baby, in the ideal scenario, will continue to achieve growth and development to the point where it will no longer require an incubator for life.

Mrs. Schiavo's brain is not growing and developing. It is, in fact, doing the opposite. Should you go back and recall your lessons in physiology, you'll note that the cerebellum is the part of the brain that controls movement, autonomic responses, basically our "primitive" responses to what life throws us. It is also the most durable section of the brain. When the body is faced with a traumatic experience, such as the loss of oxygen, certain systems are favored over others. The heart is such an example, as are the lungs. The most vital portions of the body that allows for simple life is what the body strives to maintain.

The remainder of Mrs. Schiavo's brain is no longer functioning. Therefore, one can accurately state that she is brain dead. The portion of her brain that makes her who she is, her "soul" basically, is no longer functioning. In her situation, it has withered and liquefied. It does not regenerate. It will not regenerate with the assistance of an incubator. It will not regenerate with the assistance of a team of occupational therapists. It will not regenerate with hopes, prayers, time, or anything else.

Those people who continue to say that she is responsive and therefore not braindead are not paying heed to what we know about the brain. Being responsive such as flinching when hurt, blinking, turning our heads when we spot movement, are all part of the cerebellum. It does not infer that this person is making cognizant decisions about what she is doing. Rather, its akin to a muscle contraction when someone is already dead.

Should we 20 years from now figure out how to regenerate brain tissue, Mrs. Schiavo would still not be her. Sure, the brain itself may be regenerated but the learned consciousness of who she has and what she has experienced will be gone. It would not be her that anyone was saving at that point but rather a shell of a body with a brand new person who would have to learn everything about the world completely anew. And that is a moot point anyways since modern medicine is nowhere even remotely close to making something like this a reality.

If one were to peel an orange and break apart the slices inside, and then had second thoughts and wished to put it back together again, no matter what we did we could never make it what it once was. The damage to the orange has been done and can never be taken back. Mrs. Schiavo's brain damage can never be undone. There is no fixing that can occur to allow her to lead any type of productive life. Be moral and compassionate and allow her to die with dignity.

Should you be a conservative Christian, why would you be opposed to allowing her to finally enter the kingdom of Heaven? Does she not deserve this?

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 VERY wrong on the facts - she is most definitely not brain dead. Oh, and her so called "husband" has an obvious conflict of interest and really-really wants her to die for his own profit.

You are VERY wrong on the facts - she is most definitely not brain dead. Oh, and her so called "husband" has an obvious conflict of interest and really-really wants her to die for his own profit.
The courts disagree. All of them.

Its not irrelevent

His beleief is that God demands people live as long as possible. That God doesnt want someone to end here life by pulling the plug, or anyone elses life, that life should be preserved as long as possible.

You are attacking his belief, arguing that if people cannot remain allive themselves then they should die

But in that case, why should premature babies in incubatiors should not die as they cannot survive without their machine

what denomination REQUIRES a person to live as long as possible no matter how extreme the means?

none that i know of.

one person's "rogue" theology can be challenged, in my opinion.

Its not a logical falacy. Look carefully and you will see why. In your attack on that persons quote you basicly expressed the opinion that God would not want people to live if they could not live on their own but are kept alive artifically. If thats the truth then it must be aplied across the board. Ergo you must apply it to the premature babies who cannot suvive without their incubatior machines. So I ask you, do you support the notion of people who cannot suvive naturally but only must be kept alive artifically being left to die across the board. Because if you dont you are being selective in your opinions.
At the time I assumed God would want them to live naturally, not kept alive by artificial means. And my assumption applied to that single quote, babies are an irrelevant topic. Stop playing games

Therefore, one can accurately state that she is brain dead.

No, one can NOT accurately state that she is brain dead. She is NOT, and nobody involved in the case even argues that.

Moreover, not much is known about her brain otherwise, because her husband blocked standard tests (like MRI scan) which might yield results he would not like.

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?

Then why the hell are we keeping her alive then? What's your point?

At the time I assumed God would want them to live naturally, not kept alive by artificial means. And my assumption applied to that single quote, babies are an irrelevant topic. Stop playing games

You cannot apply a principal to only one thing. Either apply it all or dont.

Do you or do you not support the idea that those who cannot continue to live without artifical support should be left to die?

IT IS A PRINICIPAL

You are arguing for the principal that those who cannot live without artificall support should be left to die

Premature babies cannot live without artifical support so is it fair to let them die in the same way that it is fair to let this women die

If you cant apply the pricipal across the board, it isnt a propper principal.
I would pull out my hair was I not afraid it wouldn't grow back. We are not debating life support or even about life support. You are attempting to compare premature babies to Terri Shiavo directly, a fallacious comparison that insults your own intelligence. Babies being kept alive in incubators are far different than coma patients or the like. Coma patients are being kept alive for the sake of keeping them alive basically, babies are kept alive so they can develop enough to live on their own.

The bullshit needs to stop

At the time I assumed God would want them to live naturally, not kept alive by artificial means. And my assumption applied to that single quote, babies are an irrelevant topic. Stop playing games

That woman is not being kept alive by artificial means either. If she were, she would have already been dead, since the plug was pulled on Friday.

That woman is not being kept alive by artificial means either. If she were, she would have already been dead, since the plug was pulled on Friday.

Here here. She is BREATHING on her own. If your brain dead, you can't even do that.

You are VERY wrong on the facts - she is most definitely not brain dead. Oh, and her so called "husband" has an obvious conflict of interest and really-really wants her to die for his own profit.

What profit is that? If you are refering to the million, ever look at hospitol/medical costs?

When my girl was born, a day and half listed out for $27000. He got that money back in 1992. The money is probably more then gone.....

You cannot apply a principal to only one thing. Either apply it all or dont.

Do you or do you not support the idea that those who cannot continue to live without artifical support should be left to die?
I will say this ONLY once more, my opinion applies solely to that quote. I developed it pertaining to that quote. In light of that quote I made a singular assumption that her being live as long as God wanted her would require her to be living under God's power, not a medical practitioner's. All of your attacks on me arn't even relating to the damned nature of the quote or my response.

IT IS A PRINICIPAL

You are arguing for the principal that those who cannot live without artificall support should be left to die

Premature babies cannot live without artifical support so is it fair to let them die in the same way that it is fair to let this women die

If you cant apply the pricipal across the board, it isnt a propper principal.
no that is not the principle.

the principle is that those who cannot live without artificial support should be allowed to CHOOSE TO REMOVE THAT SUPPORT.

not the state deciding, the person deciding. since many people in that condition are not capable of deciding, their next of kin may decide for them in understanding of what their wishes would be. ms schiavo's husband is her next of kin and her court appointed guardian so he is making the decision based on his understanding of her wishes.

premature babies are sometimes left to die if they are born so damaged that survival is impossible. the doctors dont decide this, the courts dont decide it, the FAMILY decides.

you really dont want the government to make these kinds of decisions for you, they arent good at it.

That woman is not being kept alive by artificial means either. If she were, she would have already been dead, since the plug was pulled on Friday.
Please look up the amount of time you can live without eating and leave me alone. The lack of intelligent commentary by the other two is enough for my nerves.

It saddens me that ending a life is now a political platform. The zeal and eagerness here to do so is sickening. Had Terry felt strongly enough, she'd have drafted a living will.

http://www.rense.com/general42/leg.htm


"And the court has other facts that it is also ignoring. Michael Schiavo, Terri's husband, filed a medical malpractice suit regarding his wife's injury that caused her to be cognitively disabled. He promised that he would provide her care for the rest of her natural life because she's not on intensive care or anything of that sort. He brought to the jury a rehabilitation expert with a plan to help Terri get better, but as soon as the money was in the bank, which was $750,000 in a trust fund for Terri," he refused to allow any rehabilitative treatments whatsoever. (Guess who the beneficiary is of the trust...)

"He also got $300,000 more for loss of consortium, and the money went to lawyers," Smith explained.

"Not one day, not one hour, not one minute of rehabilitation time has Terri been given so she could get better. It's unconscionable."

What profit is that? If you are refering to the million, ever look at hospitol/medical costs?

When my girl was born, a day and half listed out for $27000. He got that money back in 1992. The money is probably more then gone.....
What I read said 1998, but still that was 7 years ago and most of it probably went to reimburse the previous 8 years.

Please look up the amount of time you can live without eating and leave me alone. The lack of intelligent commentary by the other two is enough for my nerves.

Look up how long a person can live if the plug is pulled on someone who is still alive by artificial means.

No, one can NOT accurately state that she is brain dead. She is NOT, and nobody involved in the case even argues that.

Moreover, not much is known about her brain otherwise, because her husband blocked standard tests (like MRI scan) which might yield results he would not like.

So we should take your word over the team of doctors that have worked with her for the past 15 years?

Don't play with semantics. Would you prefer if people instead said that the advanced functions of the brain have ceased functioning on a permanent level? Because that is what has happened. Where is your conclusive proof to counter the doctors that have worked with her? Explain so all can hear why you believe that her cortex is still functioning. What evidence do you have that validates said belief?

Look up how long a person can live if the plug is pulled on someone who is still alive by artificial means.
Anywhere from 5 minutes to 30+ days.

Anywhere from 5 minutes to 30+ days.

However, in this case, the only thing that she has is a feeding tube. Other than that, she was never being kept alive artificially.

It saddens me that ending a life is now a political platform. The zeal and eagerness her to do so is sickening. Had Terry felt strongly enough, she'd have drafted a living will.

http://www.rense.com/general42/leg.htm


Funny you said that:

"Although Republicans publicly rejected any ulterior motives, a memo surfaced over the weekend calling the Schiavo case "a great political issue" and saying that Christian conservatives would be "excited" by the Senate debate"


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=1&u=/nm/20050321/pl_nm/rights_schiavo_dc

However, in this case, the only thing that she has is a feeding tube. Other than that, she was never being kept alive artificially.
And water. She can't swallow.

I will say this ONLY once more, my opinion applies solely to that quote. I developed it pertaining to that quote. In light of that quote I made a singular assumption that her being live as long as God wanted her would require her to be living under God's power, not a medical practitioner's. All of your attacks on me arn't even relating to the damned nature of the quote or my response.

You are aplying a universal principlal (God's will) to a specific situation (this case). That doesnt make any sense. You either suppirt the notion that peole should be kept alive articfically if they cant survive or you dont. You cant apply it to one case and not the other.

And water. She can't swallow.

But she isn't on a respirator which is reffered to as "Keeping someone alive artifically"

This feeding/water tube doesn't fit that bill.

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 agree. Legs is a hypocrite, and an annoying one at that.

You are aplying a universal principlal (God's will) to a specific situation (this case). That doesnt make any sense. You either suppirt the notion that peole should be kept alive articfically if they cant survive or you dont. You cant apply it to one case and not the other.
And you are stretching direct commentary to a global scale and to entirely irrelevant cases. My opinion if people should be kept alive artificially or not is irrelevant to my statement, on more idiotic reply gets you ignored. There has already been two posts, one by me, and one by some one else explaining how babies CANNOT be related to comatose or vegetative patients. My comment was DIRECTLY in resposne to that quote, if your going to attack me attack my damned opinion, not a fucking comment on a quote

But she isn't on a respirator which is reffered to as "Keeping someone alive artifically"

This feeding/water tube doesn't fit that bill.
Shoving a hole in their stomach and putting food and water into it doesn't count as artifical?

Do we all have one of those?

Shoving a hole in their stomach and putting food and water into it doesn't count as artifical?

Do we all have one of those?

I used to have one, but as a baby. I don't have it anymore.

I'd have to agree with the people who think the premature baby remark is moot. I was born prematurely and for 2 month I was in a incublaitor. In those two month I have gotten better and after I was released I contiuned to get better. I had a feeding tube when I was a baby, but not anymore.

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

Cuz Terri said so you ignorant prick.

I used to have one, but as a baby. I don't have it anymore.

I'd have to agree with the people who think the premature baby remark is moot. I was born prematurely and for 2 month I was in a incublaitor. In those two month I have gotten better and after I was released I contiuned to get better. I had a feeding tube when I was a baby, but not anymore.
People aren't born with those though, it was added by man? Artificial?

Funny you said that:

"Although Republicans publicly rejected any ulterior motives, a memo surfaced over the weekend calling the Schiavo case "a great political issue" and saying that Christian conservatives would be "excited" by the Senate debate"


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=1&u=/nm/20050321/pl_nm/rights_schiavo_dc

I see no moral dilema with attempting to save a life.

Cuz Terri said so you ignorant prick.

Is it in writing?

People aren't born with those though, it was added by man? Artificial?

The umbilical cord ring a bell?

I agree. Legs is a hypocrite, and an annoying one at that.

Not really. Whispering Legs is just pointing out that Michael Schiavo wants to kill his wife for money, and so that he can legally marry his illegitimate girlfriend.

Who's the hypocrite here?

What we have here is an example of the telephone effect. You see, unbiased media can't get close enough to Terri Schiavo's bedside to determine that, while she is totally paralyzed, she is incredibly cogent, and able to communicate in her own way. And the liberal media has no qualms about repeating an outright lie over and over again. So someone close to the situation said one thing, and it kept getting changed until she suddenly becomes a vegetable. (If you watch the videos of Terri Schiavo on her site, you will clearly see that she is not a vegetable.)

And for all of you who keep bandying that cute buzz-phrase about liquefied brain mass: Yes, brain cells can die when they are oxygen starved. But the cerebral cortex does not change size. The only time a brain can 'liquefy' is when exposed to blunt-force trauma or massive necrotic infection. And that has not happened here.

I see no moral dilema with attempting to save a life.


Funny you say that. In a bill in Texas signed into law by Mr. Bush

"If the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient is requesting life-sustaining treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment, the patient shall be given available life-sustaining treatment pending transfer under Subsection (d). The patient is responsible for any costs incurred in transferring the patient to another facility. The physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment after the 10th day after the written decision required under Subsection (b) is provided to the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient …"

The umbilical cord ring a bell?
If you are suggesting that you're feeding Terry though her umbillical cord, I suggest you research this topic a bit more.

1) She can't "communicate" anything
2) He could legally marry his girlfriend anyway, but that would mean divorcing Terri and turning over the power to the parents again

If you are suggesting that you're feeding Terry though her umbillical cord, I suggest you research this topic a bit more.

Not saying that at all but everyone has had food and liquid shoved through their stomachs, while in the womb via a thing called an umbilical cord.

Not saying that at all but everyone has had food and liquid shoved through their stomachs, while in the womb via a thing called an umbilical cord.
Is Terry in a womb?

Not really. Whispering Legs is just pointing out that Michael Schiavo wants to kill his wife for money, and so that he can legally marry his illegitimate girlfriend.

Who's the hypocrite here?



-_-

Whispering Legs, anyone?

Idiotic question.

I hate the ones that are accusing the husband of playing God and trying to "kill" her.

If it were really up to God, she woulda been dead of natural causes a decade and a half ago.

Let her die already.

1) She can't "communicate" anything

She can communicate in her own way.

2) He could legally marry his girlfriend anyway, but that would mean divorcing Terri and turning over the power to the parents again

Bingo! He should've done this in the first place instead of having a live-in GF and having kids with her while still married. I call him an adulterer because that is exactly what he is since he is still married to Terri.

I see no moral dilema with attempting to save a life.

Saving a life because it's the right thing to do vs saving a life for political gain.

Is Terry in a womb?

Shoving a hole in their stomach and putting food and water into it doesn't count as artifical?

Do we all have one of those?

We all used to have one of those.

Is that better?

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


Number one maybe you should check and see the whole facts of this case. Then you would realize that you may be way out of line.

This man should not have a say in her life. He sued doctors for malpractice and won. Based off that she was still alive and able to communicate. He won a award to keep her alive.

He is currently been with another woman for 10 years and two kids while still married to his first wife. That is a crime in itself. Because of common law marriage.

It took him seven full years to finally say. Oh, by the way she wanted no help in living. So lets pull the plug. This is after the new woman and the money from the lawsuit.

Next thing is. This woman is not braindead. I have seen the videos of her recently. She moves her head in direction of speech. She makes noises when asked questions. She is still alive. They kill her it's murder. Simple as that

After these facts can you still tell me that this man can make a decision for her?

BTW the President and legislative branches are invoking the 14th and 8th amendment to protect this women from these people that want to kill her.


After reading this, tell me who the dipshits are?

Saving a life because it's the right thing to do vs saving a life for political gain.

*claps*

Let's not whine about the cost in keeping this woman's live. If you think about it, the war in Iraq, and shady corporate practices waste more money then you can ever think of. Aside the money, religious moral vs. secular ethics seem to balance one another (so far I’m a centrist on this issue).

We all used to have one of those.

Is that better?
Yes, but that has nothing to do with the matter at hand. Do people generally have holes in their stomach through which food and water is pumped (by the way, the umbilical cord doesn't transfer food, it transfers blood)

She can communicate in her own way.


And you can prove this how?

We all used to have one of those.

Is that better?

No. She is being held alive not because of God, but because of a tube that is NOT natural, and she is NOT getting better.

If she can move her head and alive, then she really is suffering in that bed.

If not, stop wasting taxpayers' money and take the tube out.

And you can prove this how?

By watching the videos of Terri.

No. She is being held alive not because of God, but because of a tube that is NOT natural, and she is NOT getting better.

If she can move her head and alive, then she really is suffering in that bed.

If not, stop wasting taxpayers' money and take the tube out.

Prove that she is suffering in that bed! You can't because your not there.

No. She is being held alive not because of God, but because of a tube that is NOT natural, and she is NOT getting better.

If she can move her head and alive, then she really is suffering in that bed.

If not, stop wasting taxpayers' money and take the tube out.


By doing this it is murder. There is no written instructions that indicate her wishes. If I were gov Bush of Florida. This women would be in custody. The husband would be in jail on suspicion of attempted murder.

Prove that she is suffering in that bed! You can't because your not there.

You're a fucking idiot.

You tell me -- if she IS communicating like you're ignorant self is preaching, then she can feel things around her. Lie down in your bed right now with a fucking tube in yourself and get back to me in 15 years and tell me if you've suffered.

Only then will I retract my statement, you moralistic hypocritical cretin.

By watching the videos of Terri.

And I can show you chimps that do the same thing. It's called condition response.

Sorry the video doesn't prove anything, you have to run tests to validate.

By doing this it is murder. There is no written instructions that indicate her wishes. If I were gov Bush of Florida. This women would be in custody. The husband would be in jail on suspicion of attempted murder.

Oh please, murder? Ignorance is bliss.

By doing that is letting her die of natural causes like she should have 15 years ago. She's braindead, so why are we paying money to keep her alive when she won't get better?

Let's not whine about the cost in keeping this woman's live. If you think about it, the war in Iraq, and shady corporate practices waste more money then you can ever think of. Aside the money, religious moral vs. secular ethics seem to balance one another (so far I’m a centrist on this issue).


That is an understatement of the year. I cannot believe people complain about money when someone life is in the balance. You really have to check your morals if you think money is that important.

Prove that she is suffering in that bed! You can't because your not there.

:rolleyes:

Prove that she isn't. You can't because you are not there.

You're a fucking idiot.

Thanks for showing the level of intelligence.

You tell me -- if she IS communicating like you're ignorant self is preaching, then she can feel things around her. Lie down in your bed right now with a fucking tube in yourself and get back to me in 15 years and tell me if you've suffered.

Again your attacking me. Very nice maturity. Now can you make a point without the insults?

Only then will I retract my statement, you moralistic hypocritical cretin.

Three attacks in one post! A record on me.

And I can show you chimps that do the same thing. It's called condition response.

Sorry the video doesn't prove anything, you have to run tests to validate.

And, at the same time, it proves that Corneliu can't prove his/her point either.

:rolleyes:

Prove that she isn't. You can't because you are not there.

Correct I'm not! Neither is anyone else on this board.

Oh please, murder? Ignorance is bliss.

By doing that is letting her die of natural causes like she should have 15 years ago. She's braindead, so why are we paying money to keep her alive when she won't get better?

Find out all the facts. She isn't brain dead. People that are brain dead cannot move there head toward sounds and make them themselves. Your ignorance is outrageous. Wouldn't want you in my family.

Thanks for showing the level of intelligence.



Again your attacking me. Very nice maturity. Now can you make a point without the insults?



Three attacks in one post! A record on me.

Seems to me that you are taking advantage of insults to dodge the points I threw and crushed you with. I'm exercising my 1st amendment rights here, buddy. Try actually responding to the points than using your holier than thou "HAHAH IM NOT INSULTING YOU BUT YOU ARE TO ME" approach.

I swear, people like you try to be moralistic... and then come off sounding retarded.

Oh please, murder? Ignorance is bliss.

Euthanesia is illegal. This falls under that category. Therefore, it is murder.

By doing that is letting her die of natural causes like she should have 15 years ago. She's braindead, so why are we paying money to keep her alive when she won't get better?

Again, the term is Brain-Damaged, not brain dead. I suggest you get those two straight.

Find out all the facts. She isn't brain dead. People that are brain dead cannot move there head toward sounds and make them themselves. Your ignorance is outrageous. Wouldn't want you in my family.

Take it easy.

Brain dead is a common misunderstanding people have about perminant vegitative state.

This man should not have a say in her life. He sued doctors for malpractice and won. Based off that she was still alive and able to communicate. He won a award to keep her alive.
People win malpractice suits all the time.

He is currently been with another woman for 10 years and two kids while still married to his first wife. That is a crime in itself. Because of common law marriage.
10 years? She has been like this for 15 years. He stays married to keep the legal power over her parents which isn't helping because the government is taking the misguided step of interfering

It took him seven full years to finally say. Oh, by the way she wanted no help in living. So lets pull the plug. This is after the new woman and the money from the lawsuit.
Can no one produce proof of this?

Next thing is. This woman is not braindead. I have seen the videos of her recently. She moves her head in direction of speech. She makes noises when asked questions. She is still alive. They kill her it's murder. Simple as that
I saw a video too, it is random response

After these facts can you still tell me that this man can make a decision for her?
Legally, yes

BTW the President and legislative branches are invoking the 14th and 8th amendment to protect this women from these people that want to kill her.
Invoking the 14th amendment my ass. If this is 14th amendment, gay marriage is DEFINATELY 14th amendment as the 14th amendment says all people should share the same privileges and immunites and on that line homosexuals should be able to marry and have it recognized in every state. And you dno't even know what the 8th amendment states, do you?
Michael Schiavo has the 9th and 10th amendment in his favor.


After reading this, tell me who the dipshits are?
The federal government

Find out all the facts. She isn't brain dead. People that are brain dead cannot move there head toward sounds and make them themselves. Your ignorance is outrageous. Wouldn't want you in my family.

Your loss, your ignorant shit. A message board is a great place to vent steam, and I feel like venting on religious conservatives that think they're truly moralistic. Got a problem with that? Tough. You ever read The Importance of Being Earnest? We all "bunbury," or have different personalities or act differently in different settings. Here I feel like being aggressive, so it sucks to be you.

Your assumptions on me prove that YOU, my friend, are the ignorant one. *claps*

Again, the term is Brain-Damaged, not brain dead. I suggest you get those two straight.

Actually perminant vegitative state is the definition in this case.

Seems to me that you are taking advantage of insults to dodge the points I threw and crushed you with. I'm exercising my 1st amendment rights here, buddy. Try actually responding to the points than using your holier than thou "HAHAH IM NOT INSULTING YOU BUT YOU ARE TO ME" approach.

You didn't crush me at anything. I have my own opinions and you have yours so how are you crushing me? BTW: Hurling insults isn't a way to show your points. If your going to point something out, you do it in a calm manner and precisely. Then maybe I could agree with you. However, I don't agree with you on this.

As for your 1st Amendment rights, this is a forum of international use. Therefore, your exercising your 1st amendment rights really means nothing if it violates the rules of this board.

I swear, people like you try to be moralistic... and then come off sounding retarded.

This will win you no points from me.

Your loss, your ignorant shit. A message board is a great place to vent steam, and I feel like venting on religious conservatives that think they're truly moralistic. Got a problem with that? Tough. You ever read The Importance of Being Earnest? We all "bunbury," or have different personalities or act differently in different settings. Here I feel like being aggressive, so it sucks to be you.

Your assumptions on me prove that YOU, my friend, are the ignorant one. *claps*


Your insults to me mean absolutely nothing. Just shows your true nature. Maybe when you reach adulthood you will figure this out.

You didn't crush me at anything. I have my own opinions and you have yours so how are you crushing me? BTW: Hurling insults isn't a way to show your points. If your going to point something out, you do it in a calm manner and precisely. Then maybe I could agree with you. However, I don't agree with you on this.

As for your 1st Amendment rights, this is a forum of international use. Therefore, your exercising your 1st amendment rights really means nothing if it violates the rules of this board.



This will win you no points from me.

Please. I don't WANT to win points from you. You and your "morals" (as if) are nonsensical, and have been refuted a lot in the past 10 minutes by other posters already.

I consider it a good thing that I'm not winning points from the likes of you.

Your insults to me mean absolutely nothing. Just shows your true nature. Maybe when you reach adulthood you will figure this out.

Hmmm don't you throw out insults as well? ;)

Your insults to me mean absolutely nothing. Just shows your true nature. Maybe when you reach adulthood you will figure this out.

True nature? Once again, you prove you're extremely naive and ignorant. You really have no clue what a "bunburyist" is, do you? Because you totally dodged that horribly.

And your assumptions about my age are also a sign of ignorance. I'm besting you right now. Lift your game, mate.

Please. I don't WANT to win points from you. You and your "morals" (as if) are nonsensical, and have been refuted a lot in the past 10 minutes by other posters already.

I consider it a good thing that I'm not winning points from the likes of you.

Actually they haven't. In reality, I still would have this guy in jail on Polgamy (having more than one wife) as well as attempted murder since euthensia is illegal.

Actually they haven't. In reality, I still would have this guy in jail on Polgamy (having more than one wife) as well as attempted murder since euthensia is illegal.

Attempted murder... you have no idea what murder is, is seems.

Actually perminant vegitative state is the definition in this case.
I have been reading this story in all the mainstream sources. They are using both brain damaged and permanent vegitative state. I don't think the two terms are mutually exclusive.

And you dno't even know what the 8th amendment states, do you?




I'm not some high school kid. I actually know what I am writing. Cruel and Unusual punishment is in the 8th. Yes that does apply to this case.

Attempted murder... you have no idea what murder is, is seems.

The unlawful killing of an individual. Euthensia is illegal therefore unlawful therefore murder.

I have been reading this story in all the mainstream sources. They are using both brain damaged and permanent vegitative state. I don't think the two terms are mutually exclusive.
The mainstream media generally doesn't know jack shit, remember this.

Actually they haven't. In reality, I still would have this guy in jail on Polgamy (having more than one wife) as well as attempted murder since euthensia is illegal.

Actually, he isnt married to the other woman, they just have kids and live together. Thats grounds for the wife to ask for a divorce, but Terri cant ask for a divorce (duh).

I'm not some high school kid. I actually know what I am writing. Cruel and Unusual punishment is in the 8th. Yes that does apply to this case.
In what manner

Actually they haven't. In reality, I still would have this guy in jail on Polgamy

Do you recognise common law marriages?

It's not polgamy unless he formally marries her.

I think some of the people here (just reading the first page) are trying to the the idea that extending life isn't what we should be doing if what life is present isn't going to be lived, but just spent. We're wasting our time (and our/their money) if we attempt to prolong the life of people who aren't going to recover from what they suffer. I feel as some others here that prolonging the life seems very inhumane. If I were in her situation, I'd tell 'em to pull the plug if I could. And if I could manage it, I'd pull the plug myself. And if they stop me and charge me with a crime, what are they gonna do to me, put me to death?

It's like saying, "You can't commit suicide. It's illegal. The penalty is death." -- from A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum.

The unlawful killing of an individual. Euthensia is illegal therefore unlawful therefore murder.
No, its not considered euthensia to withdraw life support. It would be euthensia if they injected her with say, cyanide.

Actually, he isnt married to the other woman, they just have kids and live together. Thats grounds for the wife to ask for a divorce, but Terri cant ask for a divorce (duh).

However its a "Common Law" marriage and they are recognized. Therefore, he legally has more than one wife.

And the parents have asked him to divorce her and he hasn't. Why?

The unlawful killing of an individual. Euthensia is illegal therefore unlawful therefore murder.

Not unlawful if she said it, and according to Terri's husband, she did.

Your premature doubts about it are worth nothing. I'd take his word over your suspicions anyday.

No, its not considered euthensia to withdraw life support. It would be euthensia if they injected her with say, cyanide.

It is illegal if there is nothing written. The parents don't want it removed and the husband does.

There is nothing in writing on this so yea, you can make a case for euthenesia here.

No, its not considered euthensia to withdraw life support. It would be euthensia if they injected her with say, cyanide.

Good point :D

Do you recognise common law marriages?

It's not polgamy unless he formally marries her.


common laws are upheld in courts in the state im in. I had a friend get nailed on it when he booted his gf of 12 years. She got half of everything.

I have been reading this story in all the mainstream sources. They are using both brain damaged and permanent vegitative state. I don't think the two terms are mutually exclusive.

True they are. But people with certain types of brain damage can still function.

PVS kind of explains the state she is in better then simply saying her brain was damaged.

Not unlawful if she said it, and according to Terri's husband, she did.

Your premature doubts about it are worth nothing. I'd take his word over your suspicions anyday.

Then why did it take him so long to say that she said that I don't want to be artificially kept alive?

The unlawful killing of an individual. Euthensia is illegal therefore unlawful therefore murder.
I believe that is the common law deffinition for homicide. Murder I do believe requires malice aforethought.

Do you recognise common law marriages?

It's not polgamy unless he formally marries her.

Actually yes I do recognize them so therefore, I consider this polgamy. To bad he isn't in the military. His ass would've been up on charges of adultry right now.

It is illegal if there is nothing written. The parents don't want it removed and the husband does.

There is nothing in writing on this so yea, you can make a case for euthenesia here.
Again, the courts say otherwise. Every single court has agreed with the husband.

In what manner

To starve her to death. If you starved your dog because you thought he wasn't going to live. You would go to jail for animal cruelty. It is the same thing in this case.

It is illegal if there is nothing written. The parents don't want it removed and the husband does.

There is nothing in writing on this so yea, you can make a case for euthenesia here.

If you want to get into what's illegal, Jeb Bush overruled the courts 2 years ago, and that was unconstitutional. "Terri's Law." You cannot have a law applying to ONE person, because then it should apply to all of us.

So don't even try mentioning what's legal and illegal when it seems that the conservative side, out for political gain, is accomplishing feats in questionable ways.

common laws are upheld in courts in the state im in. I had a friend get nailed on it when he booted his gf of 12 years. She got half of everything.

Ah!

Hmm does Florida recognise that?

If so, then why aren't they nailing him on it?

I'm more pissed off that the government got so heavily involved in this at all. Especially because, seeing as how it's their job, now that their decision is made they're just going to forget about, like the rest of us. Once the media frenzy dies down, we won't remember, the politicians won't remeber, and the only people who will will be Terry's relatives, and they had little say in the matter.

So the only people that this truly effects had no part in the decision.

If you want to get into what's illegal, Jeb Bush overruled the courts 2 years ago, and that was unconstitutional. "Terri's Law." You cannot have a law applying to ONE person, because then it should apply to all of us.

Then the Florida Courts ruled it unconstitutional.

So don't even try mentioning what's legal and illegal when it seems that the conservative side, out for political gain, is accomplishing feats in questionable ways.

I can mention whats legal and illegal. I'm "exercising my 1st amendment rights"

His ass would've been up on charges of adultry right now.

The military?

Ask your dad about the "activities" of Subic Bay and Thailand. They don't always police that.....

To starve her to death. If you starved your dog because you thought he wasn't going to live. You would go to jail for animal cruelty. It is the same thing in this case.
If your dog was brain damaged and had to be kept alive by a feeding tube, you could have it put to sleep

Then the Florida Courts ruled it unconstitutional.



I can mention whats legal and illegal. I'm "exercising my 1st amendment rights"

Yes, the Courts DID. But we wouldn't be discussing this today if Jeb had mind his own damn business and not overrule the Courts unconstitutionally. The Courts have been agreeing in favor of the husband, and it's time the parents quit bitching and cede.

Yes, you can, sarcastically or no, but it won't get you anywhere when the side you're on has actually been the dirty ones in terms of legality.

If you want to get into what's illegal, Jeb Bush overruled the courts 2 years ago, and that was unconstitutional. "Terri's Law." You cannot have a law applying to ONE person, because then it should apply to all of us.

So don't even try mentioning what's legal and illegal when it seems that the conservative side, out for political gain, is accomplishing feats in questionable ways.
Special laws regarding one person or one small group of people are passed all the time.

People aren't born with those though, it was added by man? Artificial?

Yes it was artifical, but I was dispelling that Terri situation is like that of a pre-mature baby. See Terri can't get better. A pre-mature baby can.

Yes it was artifical, but I was dispelling that Terri situation is like that of a pre-mature baby. See Terri can't get better. A pre-mature baby can.
O.o

Which is sorta my point

Special laws regarding one person or one small group of people are passed all the time.

Name 20 then.

And tell me if that's what the American people wanna see.

I'm more pissed off that the government got so heavily involved in this at all. Especially because, seeing as how it's their job, now that their decision is made they're just going to forget about, like the rest of us. Once the media frenzy dies down, we won't remember, the politicians won't remeber, and the only people who will will be Terry's relatives, and they had little say in the matter.

So the only people that this truly effects had no part in the decision.
[ confused look ] I was under the impression that it was the parents who had encouraged legislative attempts to avoid having Terri starved to death.

[ confused look ] I was under the impression that it was the parents who had encouraged legislative attempts to avoid having Terri starved to death.

It was the parents that encouraged legislative action. It passed too then the judges declared it unconstitutional.

I don't know if anyone else has said this butbrain death
Irreversible brain damage and loss of brain function, as evidenced by cessation of breathing and other vital reflexes, unresponsiveness to stimuli, absence of muscle activity, and a flat electroencephalogram for a specific length of time.

She responds to her parents, she respods to her husband (with fear). If she was brain dead, she would have no movement. nothing at all. My cousin's husband died recently from brain death. He had a seizure so horrible, that all his synapses fired instatnly and killed him. HE was brain dead. he was completely sustained by breathing tubes and such. Scaivo is not brain dead.

I don't know if anyone else has said this but

She responds to her parents, she respods to her husband (with fear). If she was brain dead, she would have no movement. nothing at all. My cousin's husband died recently from brain death. He had a seizure so horrible, that all his synapses fired instatnly and killed him. HE was brain dead. he was completely sustained by breathing tubes and such. Scaivo is not brain dead.
Dealt with earlier. You're picking at nits. She has no chance of regaining anything close to normal cognative activity.

mmmkay...lets drop all charges against jack kevorkian and start euthanizing people with aids, parkinson's, alzheimer's, lupus, herpes, HPV, and any other non-curable illness.

i just arrived, so i wasn't following this conversation, but i'll add my opinion cause i feel strongly about this. something is nolonger alive when it cannot support itself. the person nolonger can support themselves and therefor is dead, a virus is not alive cause it cannot support itself, and a robot can respond to something even though it's not alive. hmm, that reminded me about prions, i find those interesting, but not getting off topic. even if that person was still alive, they should have been killed long ago because they cannot work for the government.

mmmkay...lets drop all charges against jack kevorkian and start euthanizing people with aids, parkinson's, alzheimer's, lupus, herpes, HPV, and any other non-curable illness.

Not to mention that this post is full of shit :rolleyes:

Not to mention that this post is full of shit :rolleyes:

How?

How?

How is it not? What relevance does it hold?

mmmkay...lets drop all charges against jack kevorkian and start euthanizing people with aids, parkinson's, alzheimer's, lupus, herpes, HPV, and any other non-curable illness.

i agree(or are you just being sarcastic? if you are then i mean to say i actually mean it)

mmmkay...lets drop all charges against jack kevorkian and start euthanizing people with aids, parkinson's, alzheimer's, lupus, herpes, HPV, and any other non-curable illness.
This is less intelligent than the baby comparison.

It would probably be a benefit to euthanize people in the late stages of Alzheimer's anyway, same with Parkinson's if I recall correctly, or I could be thinking of a different disease with some other guy's name. But yeah, euthanizing sufferers of Alzheimer's in the late stages would be better than letting them live that existance

This is less intelligent than the baby comparison.

It would probably be a benefit to euthanize people in the late stages of Alzheimer's anyway, same with Parkinson's if I recall correctly, or I could be thinking of a different disease with some other guy's name. But yeah, euthanizing sufferers of Alzheimer's in the late stages would be better than letting them live that existance
If you ask them before they get too bad that would be OK with me, my Grandma was pretty scary at the end. I'd much rather die than go completely pscycho.

How is it not? What relevance does it hold?

Alot so how is it a worthless post?

mmmkay...lets drop all charges against jack kevorkian and start euthanizing people with aids, parkinson's, alzheimer's, lupus, herpes, HPV, and any other non-curable illness.
If they want to die, let them. This no-right-to-die bullshit has to stop.

This is less intelligent than the baby comparison.

It would probably be a benefit to euthanize people in the late stages of Alzheimer's anyway, same with Parkinson's if I recall correctly, or I could be thinking of a different disease with some other guy's name. But yeah, euthanizing sufferers of Alzheimer's in the late stages would be better than letting them live that existance

Lou Gerigs disease?

If you ask them before they get too bad that would be OK with me, my Grandma was pretty scary at the end. I'd much rather die than go completely pscycho.
My grandmother is developing it rapidly. Like I already said, I'm moving to Oregon if I am diagnosed with Alzheimer's

It would probably be a benefit to euthanize people in the late stages of Alzheimer's anyway, same with Parkinson's if I recall correctly, or I could be thinking of a different disease with some other guy's name. But yeah, euthanizing sufferers of Alzheimer's in the late stages would be better than letting them live that existance

I also argee with this too a point. If they are competant enough to realize all the consequences and such.

Alot so how is it a worthless post?

Explain how it holds a lot, since you explained nothing with your post (now YOU made a worthless post).

My personal beliefs are that a human has a soul that is seperate from the brain, and that the soul is locked in the body as long as it is functioning. If I were in a persistent vegitative state for more than three months, I would have wanted to be euthanised via lethal injection/morphine overdose. Those are my wishes. I feel anything else would be cruel to me.

And so I feel that Terri should be euthanised.

And I think that Jack Kevorkian, who assisted people's suffering WITH THEIR CONSENT, should have all charges dropped against him so he can continue practicing. I believe that euthenasia is good for sufferers of AIDS, Alzheimer's, Parkinsons, Lou Gherig's, and other dabilitating, often fatal, diseases. To try to euthanise someone against their consent, or against the consent of their power of attourny, is murder, plain and simple.

Explain how it holds a lot, since you explained nothing with your post (now YOU made a worthless post).

Now your dodging my question!

How is it a worthless post when he wrote a good post and something that should be considered in my opinion.

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
If this "God" entity you're all talking about wanted her dead, he/she would have to go to farther and farther lengths to make that happen. So far, multiple hurricanes have struck florida, 3 or 4 of 'em striking just a week apart. Not one of them has even TRIED to kill her. Therefore, she may still have some staying time left on this earth.

Now your dodging my question!

How is it a worthless post when he wrote a good post and something that should be considered in my opinion.

LOL, nice try in reverting the "dodging" point back to me, but you've explained nothing.

I said what relevance does it hold. You said lots and explained nothing.

You've been dodging the question.

Nice try, but you've failed.

Stop dodging the point and answer. How does is hold any relevance or worth to this discussion?

If this "God" entity you're all talking about wanted her dead, he/she would have to go to farther and farther lengths to make that happen. So far, multiple hurricanes have struck florida, 3 or 4 of 'em striking just a week apart. Not one of them has even TRIED to kill her. Therefore, she may still have some staying time left on this earth.

Um... hurricanes are here to transport energy from one place to another, clear our debris (it certainly helped clear out useless brush here in Florida, along with knocking down old trees so they may regrow), and it transports warmer waters to the cold places up north, since that's where most hurricanes go.

So... I don't know what else to say here but wtf.

LOL, nice try in reverting the "dodging" point back to me, but you've explained nothing.

I said what relevance does it hold. You said lots and explained nothing.

You've been dodging the question.

Nice try, but you've failed.

Stop dodging the point and answer. How does is hold any relevance or worth to this discussion?

Jeez and I thought Urantia was unreasonable.

Ok! Since you won't answer straight out proves that you have no good answer.

It holds relevence because they are UNCURIBLE!!! What are we discussing here? Something that cannot be cured using medical science. HPV, Alzihemers, aids, lupus, herpes! They are NOT curable.

Since they are not curable, shouldn't we just kill them too to save on medical expenses?

If this "God" entity you're all talking about wanted her dead, he/she would have to go to farther and farther lengths to make that happen. So far, multiple hurricanes have struck florida, 3 or 4 of 'em striking just a week apart. Not one of them has even TRIED to kill her. Therefore, she may still have some staying time left on this earth.

But one can argue that "God" wanted to end her life by giving her the chemical imbalance that caused the heart attack or whatever it was that ultimately gave her the brain damage/permanent vegatative state.

Jeez and I thought Urantia was unreasonable.

Ok! Since you won't answer straight out proves that you have no good answer.

It holds relevence because they are UNCURIBLE!!! What are we discussing here? Something that cannot be cured using medical science. HPV, Alzihemers, aids, lupus, herpes! They are NOT curable.

Since they are not curable, shouldn't we just kill them too to save on medical expenses?

Irrelevant to the situation because almost all of the cases you cite do not take consciousness away from human beings. And HPV is ratheri nexpensive, I would imagine, since you don'r need treatment or at least not that much. But I agree with you that we should euthanise all people with incurable diseases IF THEY CONSENT TO BEING EUTHANISED. Same goes with the terminally ill, or people who have come to a rational decision that they no longer want to live.

But one can argue that "God" wanted to end her life by giving her the chemical imbalance that caused the heart attack or whatever it was that ultimately gave her the brain damage/permanent vegatative state.

Not to mention that there have been a ton of hurricanes that have hit in 15 years...

Jeez and I thought Urantia was unreasonable.

Ok! Since you won't answer straight out proves that you have no good answer.

It holds relevence because they are UNCURIBLE!!! What are we discussing here? Something that cannot be cured using medical science. HPV, Alzihemers, aids, lupus, herpes! They are NOT curable.

Since they are not curable, shouldn't we just kill them too to save on medical expenses?
Bush thinks so.



However, the argument in the case at hand deals with a woman who said that she did not wish to live in this situtation. The courts agree that this was her wish.

Irrelevant to the situation because almost all of the cases you cite do not take consciousness away from human beings. And HPV is ratheri nexpensive, I would imagine, since you don'r need treatment or at least not that much. But I agree with you that we should euthanise all people with incurable diseases IF THEY CONSENT TO BEING EUTHANISED. Same goes with the terminally ill, or people who have come to a rational decision that they no longer want to live.

They are incurable. They cannot be cured. Terri cannot be treated medically for her conditions. How are they different? They are not.

So now how was the post that sparked this stupid arguement a worthless post?

Very true Fab. If I may call you that?

Jeez and I thought Urantia was unreasonable.

Ok! Since you won't answer straight out proves that you have no good answer.

It holds relevence because they are UNCURIBLE!!! What are we discussing here? Something that cannot be cured using medical science. HPV, Alzihemers, aids, lupus, herpes! They are NOT curable.

Since they are not curable, shouldn't we just kill them too to save on medical expenses?

It proves nothing since you dodged the point until I called you out. You've only tried to make yourself feel better with that second sentence of yours -_-

As far as AIDs and such are concerned, I'm pretty sure that the people are still conscious during most of those diseases, and if they don't want to be held alive, then they should have the right to ask for assisted suicide.

Now what's your point?

Bush thinks so.

As does the Congress who actually passed the Bill. It wasn't Bush that proposed it anyway. He just signed it. Big Difference.

However, the argument in the case at hand deals with a woman who said that she did not wish to live in this situtation. The courts agree that this was her wish.

Do we know 100% without a doubt that she said that she didn't want to live in this situation? No we don't.

Some of you (Whispering Legs, that would be you) have said that it wouldn't hurt anyone tot give the woman's body to her parents. What about the husband? His wife is halfway between life and death. For him to properly deal with her death, he has to be sure it's over. Only then will he be able to go one with his life, knowing he did what his wife expected from him. My girlfriend is terribly claustrofobic, and her worst fear is to wake up in her grave or in an incinerator. So I promised her I would wait by her side for three days after her death and finally inject her with something to make sure she's dead. Luckilly, I live in Belgium, so that asshole Bush has nothing to say about it. But if I lived in the States and he passed a law saying I couldn't fulfill my promisse, I would feel bad about it for the rest of my life (the next time I see my girlfriend, we're going to write a document stating her wishes, to eliminate all doubt if this ever happened). Also, keeping their brain-dead doughter alive doesn't help the parents either. They're clinging to her life so much it makes me wonder how they will react the day she really dies. And if she doesn't, they will. Who will decide then? The husband's life will have been ruined for nought. Let the poor woman go in peace, en let everyone else move on.

Off topic: the only positive thing about Bush being re-elected: this time we know for sure it's the last time ;).

Very true Fab. If I may call you that?

Yes you may :)

They are incurable. They cannot be cured. Terri cannot be treated medically for her conditions. How are they different? They are not.

So now how was the post that sparked this stupid arguement a worthless post?

YOu don't read very well do you? You just say the same things over and over no matter what anyone says.

The MAJOR difference in this case is that Terri Shiavo is unconscious and has been for FIFTEEN YEARS. And thus, legal power of attourney resides with her spouse, just as it would reside with her if her husband were in that state. You know what that means? HE gets to decide wether or not to pull her life support.

And it is irrelevant to this discussion, your post thati s, because it brings in other situations that have nothing to do with this one, thus distracting from the original argument, tus ensuring that your side wins in your eyes.

Oh, and before you go off on how a feeding tube isn't life support, Fla. law states it most definately is. I will not argue this point with you.

As does the Congress who actually passed the Bill. It wasn't Bush that proposed it anyway. He just signed it. Big Difference.

If Bush gave a crap he would have vetoed the bill. That's that entire 'checks and balances' thing.


Do we know 100% without a doubt that she said that she didn't want to live in this situation? No we don't.
Do we know well enough? Do we know that she has no chance of recovery? Do we know that she has no higher order brain functions? Yes.


Is that enough to satisify the SCOTUS? Yes.

Do we know 100% without a doubt that she said that she didn't want to live in this situation? No we don't.

For reasons beyond me, you think he didn't, and your word means SQUAT compared to his.

YOu don't read very well do you? You just say the same things over and over no matter what anyone says.

The MAJOR difference in this case is that Terri Shiavo is unconscious and has been for FIFTEEN YEARS. And thus, legal power of attourney resides with her spouse, just as it would reside with her if her husband were in that state. You know what that means? HE gets to decide wether or not to pull her life support.

And it is irrelevant to this discussion, your post thati s, because it brings in other situations that have nothing to do with this one, thus distracting from the original argument, tus ensuring that your side wins in your eyes.

Oh, and before you go off on how a feeding tube isn't life support, Fla. law states it most definately is. I will not argue this point with you.
Not so much unconscious as incapable of coherent cognitive ability

Isn't there something in common law making it unlawful for congress to pass a bill that only applies to one person or in one instance? Does anyone know the name of this?

As does the Congress who actually passed the Bill. It wasn't Bush that proposed it anyway. He just signed it. Big Difference.

If Bush gave a crap he would have vetoed the bill.

What about the 8th Amendment? What about the parents rights? They are her parents by blood. They should have a say. They were the ones that pushed this.

Do we know well enough? Do we know that she has no chance of recovery? Do we know that she has no higher order brain functions? Yes.

Do we know well enough? No we don't! Do we know that she has no chance of recovery? Maybe true but miracles do happen. I'm not expecting one but I can hope and pray for one. Do we know that she has no higher order brain function? No we dont. Breathing is a higher brain function is it not?

Isn't there something in common law making it unlawful for congress to pass a bill that only applies to one person or in one instance? Does anyone know the name of this?
Bill of attainer. It only applies to punishments though.

Iv been watching this on cnn for the last week, its the only thing they are showing right now besides Iraq. Well i find it intersting for two reason.

The woman has no thought what so ever, also no (of course mericals do happen 'i'd do the cough BS thing from robots but its way over used')chance of recovery... hmm yes barbaric to kill her thow, i much rather stay in a limbo after death :rolleyes:

and the mission the husben gets over the medical court case, yes that ass for having to pay for the lawyers he used to get the million, that ass for supporting her lifeless state, that even bigger ass for careing enought to turn down another million if that means she will live in this state she is in.

I'm also amazed that if this was any animal we would blow it off and probly not rember the next day. Or the pro life religous people heh, well she has a pulse must not be her time :/

what was that movie about the guy in WWII has his limbs blown off couldnt speak just lied there day in day out, "if I had arms id strangle myself, if I had legs i'd run away, if I had a voice I could talk to myself and give myself some kind of compney", stop and think about that.

and the people who bring up civle abuse, WTF... a man makes a discision for their unable wife and people screm civel abuse... Comon' its his right, if this happened to her people would be saying what a hard discision she had to make end of story.

Bam

Not so much unconscious as incapable of coherent cognitive ability

Then how can she recognize when someone is talking to her? That is Cognitive ability. That blows that out of the water.

What about the 8th Amendment? What about the parents rights? They are her parents by blood. They should have a say. They were the ones that pushed this.



Do we know well enough? No we don't! Do we know that she has no chance of recovery? Maybe true but miracles do happen. I'm not expecting one but I can hope and pray for one. Do we know that she has no higher order brain function? No we dont. Breathing is a higher brain function is it not?

What ABOUT the 8th amendment?

Miracles? Please, everything's a miracle until science later explains it :rolleyes:

What about the 8th Amendment? What about the parents rights? They are her parents by blood. They should have a say. They were the ones that pushed this.

What about them? Bush signed into a law that allowed health care providers to remove life support to people without their consent (in texas). Period.


Do we know well enough? No we don't! Do we know that she has no chance of recovery? Maybe true but miracles do happen. I'm not expecting one but I can hope and pray for one. Do we know that she has no higher order brain function? No we dont. Breathing is a higher brain function is it not?
No, breathing is a quite low brain function, one of the last to go. I think it can also be controlled from the aortic arch if need be. Yes, we do know, enough doctors have said so (neutral, court appointed one, including a head neurologist from the AMA)

What ABOUT the 8th amendment?

Miracles? Please, everything's a miracle until science later explains it :rolleyes:

I would love science to explain how a tumor made a female in India look 8 months pregnant disappeared overnight.

Then how can she recognize when someone is talking to her? That is Cognitive ability. That blows that out of the water.
She isn't. Her eyes are moving towards a source of sound. Fish do this.

Then how can she recognize when someone is talking to her? That is Cognitive ability. That blows that out of the water.

Nice useless hyperbole at the end, there.

Prove that she can recognize anything, or that she'll ever be anything more than what she is right now.

I would love science to explain how a tumor made a female in India look 8 months pregnant disappeared overnight.

100 years ago we couldn't explain a lot until science progressed.

We don't understand EVERYTHING right now. And never has Man understood everything. As sciences progresses, we learn and find out more and more, and less reliance is used on "miracles."

Your comment is truly the most ignorant thing I've ever heard.

Nice useless hyperbole at the end, there.

Prove that she can recognize anything, or that she'll ever be anything more than what she is right now.

Ohh! Hearing is a cognitive ability. You have to hear the sounds to move your head towards the sounds.

Originally Posted by Soviet Narco State
Bill of attainer. It only applies to punishments though.

So how could congress enforce this law, if they can't punish Schaivo for breaking it; or does the Bill of attainer only apply to instances after the individual has commited the act (so that only if he had already euthanized his wife, enforcing this bill would be unlawful).

Your comment is truly the most ignorant thing I've ever heard.

True story. One hundred percent a true story. Thus since its true, how is it ignorant?

So how could congress enforce this law, if they can't punish Schaivo for breaking it; or does the Bill of attainer only apply to instances after the individual has commited the act (so that only if he had already euthanized his wife, enforcing this bill would be unlawful).
No, you can't make bills of attainers. Doing this is legal on that level, though it comes rather close to violating a few seperation of powers.

Nice useless hyperbole at the end, there.

Prove that she can recognize anything, or that she'll ever be anything more than what she is right now.

Someone is speaking to her and she moves to look at the speaker. She recognizes when someone enters the room. She recognizes when someone is talking to her and she tries to communicate back.

True story. One hundred percent a true story. Thus since its true, how is it ignorant?

Wow, they're right about you -- you really CAN'T read.

Reread this:

"100 years ago we couldn't explain a lot until science progressed.

We don't understand EVERYTHING right now. And never has Man understood everything. As sciences progresses, we learn and find out more and more, and less reliance is used on "miracles."

Your comment is truly the most ignorant thing I've ever heard."

How the hell can you misunderstand that?

So how could congress enforce this law, if they can't punish Schaivo for breaking it; or does the Bill of attainer only apply to instances after the individual has commited the act (so that only if he had already euthanized his wife, enforcing this bill would be unlawful).
The law just passed only gives the federal courts the power to hear terri's case.
Bills of attainder are archaic things from an earlier age, I don't think they really ever come up anymore. It just means that congress can't pass laws punishing people without trial. For example Congress couldn't pass a law saying the husband (I don't know his name) must go to jail for 10 years for trying to pull the plug on his wife. It is from Article 1 section 9 of the constitution

Wow, they're right about you -- you really CAN'T read.

Wow another personal attack. Man you really like personal attacks don't you?

Reread this:

I did

"100 years ago we couldn't explain a lot until science progressed.

We don't understand EVERYTHING right now. And never has Man understood everything. As sciences progresses, we learn and find out more and more, and less reliance is used on "miracles."

However, miracles do happen whether you believe they do or not. I've seen to many things not to believe in miracles. We use science to explain things we don't understand. That is the nature of the world. People want something explained so the default setting is to use science to explain something even though it doesn't really explain it. Its a good PLAUSIBLE explanation but doesn't explain it.

Your comment is truly the most ignorant thing I've ever heard."

Nope. What I said was true so it isn't ignorant.

How the hell can you misunderstand that?

I didn't misunderstand anything. If anything, it is you that is misunderstanding what I am saying.

Hearng isn't a cognitive function. Breathing isn't either. Most people breath autonomically, and can never turn their hearing off unless they render themselves deaf. These are natural stimulus responses. A dog has very little brain capacity compared to humans, but it will turn its head to you when you talk to it.

Her husband HAS THE RIGHT to end her lifeless existence, wether she really did express those wishes or not. She would have the same right were she in his shoes, and NONE OF YOU SEXIST BITCHES WOULD COMPLAIN. End of story.

Everyone arguing for the tube to be removed, might wanna read my second response here:

Wow another personal attack. Man you really like personal attacks don't you?

Yes I do. Good job



However, miracles do happen whether you believe they do or not.

LOL! So, you say there's NO proof that Terri said she would not want to live like this, but miracles exist whether I "believe they do or not"? PROVE miracles exist!


I've seen to many things not to believe in miracles. We use science to explain things we don't understand. That is the nature of the world. People want something explained so the default setting is to use science to explain something even though it doesn't really explain it. Its a good PLAUSIBLE explanation but doesn't explain it.

Does that mean miracles exist? NO. It actually shows that people want an explanation, so "God made a miracle" is your explanation -_-



Nope. What I said was true so it isn't ignorant.

Yes it was ignorant. If something good happens and we can't explain it RIGHT now, it's ALWAYS a miracle, until science later explains it anyway.

look:

1000 years ago, the sun rising in the morning was considered a 'miracle'

now, we have scientific proof of how and why it does what it does.

someday in the future, we will understand how and why the tumor disappeared.

it's not a miracle, it's just something that we do not have an explanation for yet

look:

1000 years ago, the sun rising in the morning was considered a 'miracle'

now, we have scientific proof of how and why it does what it does.

someday in the future, we will understand how and why the tumor disappeared.

it's not a miracle, it's just something that we do not have an explanation for yet

THANK YOU! *claps* That post was excellent! :) :) :)

look:

1000 years ago, the sun rising in the morning was considered a 'miracle'

now, we have scientific proof of how and why it does what it does.

someday in the future, we will understand how and why the tumor disappeared.

it's not a miracle, it's just something that we do not have an explanation for yet

100 Bucks say they won't be able to explain it.

100 Bucks say they won't be able to explain it.
IF you find some paranormal shit science can't explain you can have a million dollars @ http://www.randi.org/research/index.html.

100 Bucks say they won't be able to explain it.

wtf? How ignorant can you get?

100 bucks says that by the end of time, science won't be able to explain that tumor incident?

Where's your proof that they'll never explain it? :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Corneliu
I would love science to explain how a tumor made a female in India look 8 months pregnant disappeared overnight.

I bet the tumor died, and her t-cells easily took care of the dead cancer cells. I don't think that is too difficult for science to explain. Even though some situations exist for which modern science has no good explanation (and this isn't even one of them), that does not mean that future science will never be able to explain these things. Science is advancing exponentially. On the other hand, God and religion are not advancing, they are retreating, if you believe the Biblical accounts of great miracles. While science is producing more and more of its type of miracles, God-caused miracles have almost disappeared. In other words, if I want a miracle, I would pray to science using a textbook before I'd pray to God using the bible.

wtf? How ignorant can you get?

100 bucks says that by the end of time, science won't be able to explain that tumor incident?

Where's your proof that they'll never explain it? :rolleyes:

Where's your proof that they will?

Now you are just being childish. Go grow up a little.

Eventualy science will explain psychosemetic things, telekinesis, consciousness, the soul, spirituality, and everything else there is to be rationalized, until humans all die or revert back to the dark ages because people like you are so dead set against science explaining things.

That is, if science is ever freed from the moral deadlock it is forced into now, with economic and beaurocratic issues cluttering up research and making reults skew in favor of a bias.

Now you are just being childish. Go grow up a little.

Eventualy science will explain psychosemetic things, telekinesis, consciousness, the soul, spirituality, and everything else there is to be rationalized, until humans all die or revert back to the dark ages because people like you are so dead set against science explaining things.

That is, if science is ever freed from the moral deadlock it is forced into now, with economic and beaurocratic issues cluttering up research and making reults skew in favor of a bias.

Great post :).

I bet the tumor died, and her t-cells easily took care of the dead cancer cells. I don't think that is too difficult for science to explain. Even though some situations exist for which modern science has no good explanation (and this isn't even one of them), that does not mean that future science will never be able to explain these things. Science is advancing exponentially. On the other hand, God and religion are not advancing, they are retreating, if you believe the Biblical accounts of great miracles. While science is producing more and more of its type of miracles, God-caused miracles have almost disappeared. In other words, if I want a miracle, I would pray to science using a textbook before I'd pray to God using the bible.

Problem is tumors don't die overnight. If tumors are dying, then the tumor would've gotten smaller over time and it didn't. It made her look pregnant for quite sometime. The tumor never gotten smaller. So if the cells were dying, doesn't it mean that the tumor itself would've been getting smaller and smaller considering nothing that the doctors were doing was making it smaller and smaller nor was their treatments even working on it?

However, miracles do happen whether you believe they do or not. I've seen to many things not to believe in miracles. We use science to explain things we don't understand. That is the nature of the world. People want something explained so the default setting is to use science to explain something even though it doesn't really explain it. Its a good PLAUSIBLE explanation but doesn't explain it.



you are wronge there, religion is the false attempts of humans to explain the world. science is an attempt to explain the world logically, so although it may not be true, it's allot better than anything you'll ever find by religion.
if miracles exist then say how? everything has an explaination weather we know it or not, and we don't need to know it.

ANd you are being a whiny little prat because you can't keep up with us Godless heathens. Nu,

Corneliu, you can't say science won't ever explain the tumor incident, because science has explained SO MUCH over the past century ALONE. How you can sit there and make asinine assumptions, claim miracles exist no matter what we say with NO PROOF BACKING YOU, then contradict yourself and say, "We never heard Terri say anything so there," is beyond me.

ANd you are being a whiny little prat because you can't keep up with us Godless heathens. Nu,

No I can keep up, I just choose not too because no matter what, neither side is going to convince the other of their point of view. Therefore, its a pointless debate.

just as a slightly related point, has anyone seen jesussaves lately?

Corneliu, you can't say science won't ever explain the tumor incident, because science has explained SO MUCH over the past century ALONE. How you can sit there and make asinine assumptions, claim miracles exist no matter what we say with NO PROOF BACKING YOU, then contradict yourself and say, "We never heard Terri say anything so there," is beyond me.

No. What I'm saying is that all we are hearing is considered hear-say evidence. Hear-say evidence isn't even admitted into a court of law.

We are hearing that her husband is saying this but do we know for sure that she did? That is what I am asking.

No I can keep up, I just choose not too because no matter what, neither side is going to convince the other of their point of view. Therefore, its a pointless debate.

All debate is pointless. Don't cry about it because we're giving you a headache by making you think of growed-up things. Go have an aspirin and come back when you're ready to defend your positions with deductive reasoning, logic, and actual evidence.

No. What I'm saying is that all we are hearing is considered hear-say evidence. Hear-say evidence isn't even admitted into a court of law.

We are hearing that her husband is saying this but do we know for sure that she did? That is what I am asking.

what does it matter if she did or not? they can nolonger continue the progress of government and therefore must die. they don't deserve anything from the government if they can't help it.

No. What I'm saying is that all we are hearing is considered hear-say evidence. Hear-say evidence isn't even admitted into a court of law.

We are hearing that her husband is saying this but do we know for sure that she did? That is what I am asking.

Even if she DID NOT SAY ANYTHING TO ANYONE ABOUT IT, which is unlikely considering SEVERAL OF HER FRIENDS HAVE TESTIFIED TO THAT EFFECT, her husband still has the authority to end her pointless suffering. So why are you still blathering on about pointless things?

No. What I'm saying is that all we are hearing is considered hear-say evidence. Hear-say evidence isn't even admitted into a court of law.

We are hearing that her husband is saying this but do we know for sure that she did? That is what I am asking.

YOU are the one saying that miracles happen NO MATTER WHAT WE SAY (which is idiotic). EVEN THOUGH there is NO PROOF, they happened.

And THEN you go and claim, despite the HUSBAND'S claim to Terri saying she does NOT want to be kept alived, there is NO proof.

You can't say the former and then spout out the latter without being a hypocrite.

Even Anthony Flew says there is a God now. Why not miracles.

All debate is pointless.

Actually, all debate isn't pointless. A debate is good when it is done coherently and maturely. All sides can be presented and intelligent questions can be asked. Debates are healthy so I will have to disagree with this point.

Don't cry about it because we're giving you a headache by making you think of growed-up things.

Grown-up things? Like to know something? I really don't care what this judge rules. I was trying to make a point on keeping her on that feeding tube. I took that side for debating purposes. However, I forgot I'm dealing with NS General and intelligent debate is lost on most people on here.

YOU are the one saying that miracles happen NO MATTER WHAT WE SAY (which is idiotic). EVEN THOUGH there is NO PROOF, they happened.

And THEN you go and claim, despite the HUSBAND'S claim to Terri saying she does NOT want to be kept alived, there is NO proof.

You can't say the former and then spout out the latter without being a hypocrite.

Much props, man. At least some people on this forum can see reason.

what does it matter if she did or not? they can nolonger continue the progress of government and therefore must die. they don't deserve anything from the government if they can't help it.

Then what is wrong with letting her parents take over the responsibility for her care?

Much props, man. At least some people on this forum can see reason.

Thank you. You're doing quite well yourself.

Actually, all debate isn't pointless. A debate is good when it is done coherently and maturely. All sides can be presented and intelligent questions can be asked. Debates are healthy so I will have to disagree with this point.

I could go on and on about how eventually we will all die and even the Universe will come to an end and thus debate would be rendered pointless, but I think I just did.

Grown-up things? Like to know something? I really don't care what this judge rules. I was trying to make a point on keeping her on that feeding tube. I took that side for debating purposes. However, I forgot I'm dealing with NS General and intelligent debate is lost on most people on here.

You took that position and then kept saying the same stupid things over and over in face of evidence, rationale, and logic to the contrary. That is not debate. That is whining.

Then what is wrong with letting her parents take over the responsibility for her care?

Because she didn't want it, as others have testified.

just out of curiosity, does anyone have the figures on how much it costs to keep her alive every day?

courtesy of DailyKos, some recent poll numbers on this case:

ABC News. 3/20. MoE 4.5% (No trend lines.)

Removal of feeding tube

Support 63
Oppose 28

Federal Intervention

Support 35
Oppose 60

Appropriate for Congress to get involved?

Appropriate 27
Not Appropriate 70

Reason political leaders are trying to keep Shiavo alive

Concern about Shiavo 19
Political Advantage 67

Even among evangelicals, 46 percent support removal of the feeding tube, as opposed to 44 percent who oppose. Conservatives support removal of the feeding tube 54-40.

I could go on and on about how eventually we will all die and even the Universe will come to an end and thus debate would be rendered pointless, but I think I just did.

Since you put it that way, I shall agree with you then.

You took that position and then kept saying the same stupid things over and over in face of evidence, rationale, and logic to the contrary. That is not debate. That is whining.

No I actually haven't said the samething over and over again. I've been trying to have a reasonable debate and getting assassinated because I'm trying to have a reasonable debate.

Again this is the NS General Forum and reasonable debate is very very very rare.

No I actually haven't said the samething over and over again. I've been trying to have a reasonable debate and getting assassinated because I'm trying to have a reasonable debate.

Again this is the NS General Forum and reasonable debate is very very very rare.

Reasonable debate? Debating is "My stance is yatta yatta." Not "Miracles happen no matter what you say."

Uhmm..several posts you take what people say about euthenasia, such as it having to be consented to, and say "BUT THEY ARE INCURABLE!" Over. And over. The same with Shiavo and her power of attourney. How is that a reasonable debate, when people have attempted to give responses and then gotten annoyed with you after they found their efforts futile?

Reasonable debate? Debating is "My stance is yatta yatta." Not "Miracles happen no matter what you say."

I gave my stance then we had a miracle debate. In essence, we were having 2 debates at once.

courtesy of DailyKos, some recent poll numbers on this case:

ABC News. 3/20. MoE 4.5% (No trend lines.)

Removal of feeding tube

Support 63
Oppose 28

Federal Intervention

Support 35
Oppose 60

Appropriate for Congress to get involved?

Appropriate 27
Not Appropriate 70

Reason political leaders are trying to keep Shiavo alive

Concern about Shiavo 19
Political Advantage 67

Even among evangelicals, 46 percent support removal of the feeding tube, as opposed to 44 percent who oppose. Conservatives support removal of the feeding tube 54-40.
Beat you to it bottle ;)

Uhmm..several posts you take what people say about euthenasia, such as it having to be consented to, and say "BUT THEY ARE INCURABLE!" Over. And over.

In this yea your right I did. I will concede that and Apologize. I'm running on adredaline, haven't been feeling well, and stressing out due to the projects I have due this week.

Please accept my apologies for doing so.

The same with Shiavo and her power of attourney. How is that a reasonable debate, when people have attempted to give responses and then gotten annoyed with you after they found their efforts futile?

I was trying to ask thought provoking questions. I guess I failed in that regard.

Then what is wrong with letting her parents take over the responsibility for her care?

'cause there is no point in a dead thing that we know won't change, and it's still taking resources away from the government.


EDIT: this is completely different if we're talkin about tardigrades

'cause once something is dead it should remain dead, and it's still taking resources away from the government.

Problem here is, she ain't dead.

Isn't arguing fun? Gets adrenaline all pumping and juices flowing. That is the oint of it to me. If I offend, not sorry, go cry on someone else's shoulder :p .

And anyway, your questions WERE thought provoking. The first time. After they were answered and you still asked the same questions unaugmented, it kind of seemed like you were ignoring me/us so we resorted to fun little ad homonims.

Problem here is, she ain't dead.

once something cannot sustain itself it is dead

Originally Posted by Corneliu
Problem is tumors don't die overnight. If tumors are dying, then the tumor would've gotten smaller over time and it didn't. It made her look pregnant for quite sometime. The tumor never gotten smaller. So if the cells were dying, doesn't it mean that the tumor itself would've been getting smaller and smaller considering nothing that the doctors were doing was making it smaller and smaller nor was their treatments even working on it?

It could have killed itself in one of several different ways. It could have killed the blood vessels that feed it. A new study (http://www.mskcc.org/mskcc/html/13599.cfm) shows that this is actually the way that radiation kills cancer, so this is a viable explanation, especially considering that this would deprive the tumor of oxygen, killing it rather quickly.

Also, you didn't address my point that science produced miracles are much more common, at least now, than God produced miracles. Again, if I need a miracle, I will appeal to science and not to God, even though God might be the cause of some miracles (only by default, because we cannot currently think of a better explanation).

Problem here is, she ain't dead.

She has been as good as dead for the past fifteen years. I am assuming you are taking the position on this issue a)out of general ignorance of the situation, or b) out of spite for thoseo n the other side, or just to poke.

Isn't arguing fun? Gets adrenaline all pumping and juices flowing. That is the oint of it to me. If I offend, not sorry, go cry on someone else's shoulder :p .

And anyway, your questions WERE thought provoking. The first time. After they were answered and you still asked the same questions unaugmented, it kind of seemed like you were ignoring me/us so we resorted to fun little ad homonims.

Pretty much that's what happened.

Problem here is, she ain't dead.


neither is the potted plant i have in my window, but the government doesn't get involved when i go on vacation and don't water it

once something cannot sustain itself it is dead

I'll concede part of this however, she can sustain life through breathing. However, she can't feed herself or take liquids in. That is the point of contention.

It could have killed itself in one of several different ways. It could have killed the blood vessels that feed it. A new study (http://www.mskcc.org/mskcc/html/13599.cfm) shows that this is actually the way that radiation kills cancer, so this is a viable explanation, especially considering that this would deprive the tumor of oxygen, killing it rather quickly.

Also, you didn't address my point that science produced miracles are much more common, at least now, than God produced miracles. Again, if I need a miracle, I will appeal to science and not to God, even though God might be the cause of some miracles (only by default, because we cannot currently think of a better explanation).

As much as it'll suprise everyone here,

I can actually get behind this statement.

neither is the potted plant i have in my window, but the government doesn't get involved when i go on vacation and don't water it

a plant is just as alive as any other organism. infact, smarter than some(bush and kerry...) and there is no difference in equality between that and a human, so the government should get involved

EDIT: i don't mean this in that plants should be brought up to human status, i mean that humans should be lowered to plant status. human mulch would be great in my garden(ignore last sentance, heheh)

I'll concede part of this however, she can sustain life through breathing. However, she can't feed herself or take liquids in. That is the point of contention.

And under Florida law, a feeding/hydration tube is considered life support. Putting it under the domain of Power of Attourney to eliminate or keep active. The End.

And under Florida law, a feeding/hydration tube is considered life support. Putting it under the domain of Power of Attourney to eliminate or keep active. The End.


bush minor is gov there, right?

wanna bet that law changes by the end of the year?

And under Florida law, a feeding/hydration tube is considered life support. Putting it under the domain of Power of Attourney to eliminate or keep active. The End.

However, you could challenge this and see if you can get it unconstitutional. That requires a court proceedings however and that costs money. :D

However, you could challenge this and see if you can get it unconstitutional. That requires a court proceedings however and that costs money. :D


show me what part of the constitution goes against that law

However, you could challenge this and see if you can get it unconstitutional. That requires a court proceedings however and that costs money. :D

What is WRONG with the law? What is WRONG with letting her body release its grip on her spirit, to whatever end? This issue touches base with me because of my beliefs. I think that Terri Chiavo is locked inside her own personal hell, unable to express herself, like watching herself be in that state for all those years. I think she needs to die. I think that after all this time she DESERVES that compassion. Why don't you?

bush minor is gov there, right?

wanna bet that law changes by the end of the year?

Probably, but the way he pushed through Terri's Law, and IT was then rendered unconstitutional, he might have blockage by the Supreme Court. I am hoping he ges replaced as Governor there.

Probably, but the way he pushed through Terri's Law, and IT was then rendered unconstitutional, he might have blockage by the Supreme Court. I am hoping he ges replaced as Governor there.

I live in Florida, and the best thing he did was raise public awareness for the 128491248091 hurricanes that hit us. I commend him there.

Other than that, he's been pretty sucky, with no real accomplishments under his belt and supports FCAT (Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test) which you HAVE to pass to graduate. It's easy as heck, but teachers have to STOP what they're doing to prep kids up for a useless test when they SHOULD be teaching me things in their cirriculum!

Guess this thread's kinda dead...*goes off to gun control thread*

Guess this thread's kinda dead...*goes off to gun control thread*

I think we did well :D

made it to 33 pages.

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!").

Your reasoning on #4 misses the fact that were the situation reversed the wife would have the say. It's not about sexism.

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 familiar with Metallica being I'm an old fart. But I had to make a similar decision regarding someone who was brain dead. It was less complicated because artificial means were required for respiration and the hypothalmus was gone so all regulation was gone with it. It is a devastating situation to be in. To have it dragged out by allowing the parents to continue grasping at false hope is overly indulgent of selfish parents.

The whole concept of God is laughable. If there was a God who cared she would be walking around by now just like JC & Co. is said to have done. Utter hogwash.

Well considering George Bush just signed a bill into law to keep the woman alive I would venture to guess its into federal
Been out living real life. Has the federal court determined if Congress has the right to intercede?

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

My favorite part of all of this is that everyday innocent Iraqi children die in the most horrible of ways and nary a passing comment is made about it by these supposedly god fearing, life loving, rightwing freaks...but yet they find all the time and (taxpayer) money in the world to prattle on endlessly about one braindead woman who did this to herself with Bulimia.

The sheer irony of these people's disconnect is so extreme, it's like something out of a Federico Fellini film.

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:
More importantly, how is it that the doctors don't see what the parents see? How is it that the courts agreee that it is no longer a she in any real sense?

My favorite part of all of this is that everyday innocent Iraqi children die in the most horrible of ways and nary a passing comment is made about it by these supposedly god fearing, life loving, rightwing freaks...but yet they find all the time and (taxpayer) money in the world to prattle on endlessly about one braindead woman who did this to herself with Bulimia.

The sheer irony of these people's disconnect is so extreme, it's like something out of a Federico Fellini film.

Dude I doubt Terri was going around, you know I would just LOVE to have an attack of Bulimia, oh God please give me an attack of Bulimia so that I can lay in bed for the next 15 years.

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.
What do you think has been going on in the Florida courts for years? Exactly what you want. The Florida courts made a decision based on the facts. Congress & the Pres. have made a decision based on politics.

I can't believe the shite the republicans are saying about this:
"In instances like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws and our courts should have a presumption in favour of life" George W Bush
What frigging doubts?! Not one doctor has said there is any hope in her recovering. Not one! So who is casting these doubts?
Oh right. God. :rolleyes:
Or this one:
"It is our duty to save a life that was still worth living." A senior republican
Oh, of course. Lying in a frigging bed for 15 years with a tubes stuck up my arse and in every other orifice, uanble to move, eat, drink or even think is certainly a life worth living.
Now why don't all those ppl who trulybelieve that go out and practise what they preach? Certainly be much quieter for the rest of us.

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.
She was once a human being. She is now human in form only.

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.
So then the husband can just go get stuffed while her Mama gets to play out her maternal fantasy? His feelings, thoughts and knowledge of the woman he loves (loved?) means nothing?