The Terri Case - this is ridiculous

[avatar382]

One can see court decisions and see them to be morally wrong.

Dred Scott Decision

This isn't the same kind of case Dred Scott was. This is a case that is decided by evidence, not philosophical questions such as who is a citizen and who is not...

Simply put - most would agree that:
1.) IF Terri Schaivo is in a PVS
2.) IF it is true that she would not want life support in her current state

Then the court's decision would be the correct decsion. Does anyone disagree with that? Would anyone out there have a problem removing the tube if god came down and revealed that the woman is for a fact in a PVS, and for a fact would not want life support in her state?

Unfortunately, if there is a god, he has not come down and revealed anything for fact. Thus, we must rely on courts and on doctors. We have courts for the very reason of deciding difficult cases such as these. 23 or so courts so far have found that 1 and 2 are true, beyond a reasonable doubt.

No one is saying the courts are perfect. The courts do condemn innocent people to death as criminals. In this case, given that so many courts have unanimously ruled in favor of the husband, the rational conclusion is that the evidence must be very strongly in his favor, and the chance of the courts being wrong is very, very slim.

 

[Delmar]

I agree. There no hope for her or her family as long as she is being kept breathing. From what I hear her husband stood by her side for a long time. Any money he got paid her bills. His life has been on hold for 15 years. On the other side, parents see hope where there is none. They do not wish to accept what is happening. We are in no position to judge. And it is not a issue to play politics with. It's time to let God take her and get on with life. Then they all can start over again.

Terry is not being "kept breathing" are you unaware of the facts or are you a liar?

 

[Crow]

Terry is not being "kept breathing" are you unaware of the facts or are you a liar?

Perhaps that's another way of saying "Hasn't been killed yet."

 

[wholearmor]

This isn't the same kind of case Dred Scott was. This is a case that is decided by evidence, not philosophical questions such as who is a citizen and who is not...

If it were truly decided by evidence, who's evidence? There are many conflicting opinions concerning Terri's condition.

Simply put - most would agree that:
1.) IF Terri Schaivo is in a PVS

She doesn't appear to be.

2.) IF it is true that she would not want life support in her current state

How would she know ahead of time and even if she did, it wouldn't matter since suicide and assisted suicide is illegal.

Then the court's decision would be the correct decsion. Does anyone disagree with that?

I do for my reason stated last.

Would anyone out there have a problem removing the tube if god came down and revealed that the woman is for a fact in a PVS, and for a fact would not want life support in her state?

god or God? Which are you referring to? If you're referring to the one true God, he's already come down and given us the parable of the Good Samaritan.

Unfortunately, if there is a god, he has not come down and revealed anything for fact. Thus, we must rely on courts and on doctors. We have courts for the very reason of deciding difficult cases such as these. 23 or so courts so far have found that 1 and 2 are true, beyond a reasonable doubt.

See my last statement.

No one is saying the courts are perfect. The courts do condemn innocent people to death as criminals. In this case, given that so many courts have unanimously ruled in favor of the husband, the rational conclusion is that the evidence must be very strongly in his favor, and the chance of the courts being wrong is very, very slim.

The rational conclusion is that the courts OK'd killing the most innocent among us in 1973 and cannot be trusted.

 

[BillyBob]

C'mon BillyBob, it has been said why, you just stick your head in the sand and say "You're wrong" without disproving or refuting the arguments.

First of all, I am not the person making a particular claim, you are. Therefor, the burden of proof rests squarely on your shoulders. I have simply asked you to prove your assertion that what Congress did last week in this case was unConstitutional as you keep claiming. So far, the only head in the sand is yours.

These are the facts:

Congress orders a federal court to re-open a state court's final judgment on a family law issue.

Congress simply allowed a Federal Judge the right to take a look at the case and make sure there wasn't something wrong with the judgement. Show me where that is unConstitutional. Be specific, show me which article disallows it!! Until then, your blather about the unConstitutionality of Congress' recent action will fall on deaf ears.

Do you know what Federalism is?
Do you know what separation of powers is?
Do you agree federalism and separation of powers are Constitutional concepts?
Do you agree that the legislature is charged with creating laws, while the judiciary is charged with interpreting them?
Do you agree that once a matter has been ruled on, it's not merely "creating" laws if the only purpose of new legislation is essentially to get another court to overturn it?

:yawn:

I'm still waiting.........waiting.........waiting.........

[I'll give a a hint where to start...try reading Article III......]

 

[elected4ever]

Sense when is the right to life guaranteed by the constitution not a federal matter?

 

[BillyBob]

Exactly.

 

[Stelakh]

Looks like he's building his own reputation. Did you bother to look at the timeline from people who have been with this from the beginning? Or are you merely going to remain content supporting the murder of handicapped folks?

Let's get something straight right off the cuff. I'm really sick to death (ha!) of seeing the phrase "supporting the murder of handicapped folks".

My mother, who died under two hours ago, has spent the last three years in a nursing home after suffering four major strokes. Don't you dare even think about accusing me of "supporting the murder of handicapped folks".

I support the rights of individuals. I don't attempt to force my morals on others. I'm not a fascist. I don't easily sling such inflammatory comments at others. I don't use religion as a sword. I don't use the bible as a bludgeoning tool.

I DO believe that nobody knows the full story, despite the timeline from people who have been with this from the beginning, just like you didn't now MY story before you made your wild, inflammatory, and uncalled for remark.

And if this post seems a little gruff, it could be a combination of being sick of the stupidity of prhases like the one you used, with a bit of emotional upheaval from having my mother just die. Perhaps I'll recant later, but I don't think so right now.

 

[Stelakh]

And, while I'm about it, I think it's important to note that I haven't given an opinion one way or another as to my own personal beliefs regarding whether or not the decision to remove Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tube was right. And yet I've already been accused of supporting that decision. Astonishing.

 

[Crow]

Let's get something straight right off the cuff. I'm really sick to death (ha!) of seeing the phrase "supporting the murder of handicapped folks".

My mother, who died under two hours ago, has spent the last three years in a nursing home after suffering four major strokes. Don't you dare even think about accusing me of "supporting the murder of handicapped folks".

What does any of this have to do with whether it is right or wrong to withold nourishment from a woman? And why would your mother's death have anything to do with whether or not you support murdering the handicapped?

I support the rights of individuals. I don't attempt to force my morals on others. I'm not a fascist. I don't easily sling such inflammatory comments at others. I don't use religion as a sword. I don't use the bible as a bludgeoning tool.

I support the rights of individuals too, the most basic of which is to exist.

I DO believe that nobody knows the full story, despite the timeline from people who have been with this from the beginning, just like you didn't now MY story before you made your wild, inflammatory, and uncalled for remark.

Nineveh made the observation that there is reasonable cause to suspect Terri's husband's motives based on the way this case has played out. Questioning the credibility of a player in a very public issue based on past actions and current attempted actions is fair game.

And if this post seems a little gruff, it could be a combination of being sick of the stupidity of prhases like the one you used, with a bit of emotional upheaval from having my mother just die. Perhaps I'll recant later, but I don't think so right now.

Forgive me, but you just lost your mother and you're posting on a message board less than 2 hours later? Can you see how that bit of info would make people question your credibility, just as Michael Schiavo's is being questioned? When a person's actions do not fit with what they are saying, one could not be human and but help to think something isn't right.

 

[BillyBob]

Forgive me, but you just lost your mother and you're posting on a message board less than 2 hours later? Can you see how that bit of info would make people question your credibility, just as Michael Schiavo's are being questioned? When a person's actions do not fit with what they are saying, one could not be human and but help to think something isn't right.

Yep.

 

[Sozo]

Advance directives. living wills, etc, are an example of laws that were intended for good being used for a wicked purpose.

These insturments were intended to spare people who were close to death and unable to be healed the opportunity to die without the pain and indignity of a battery of futile treatments to prolong the process of death. To allow a man or woman with a terminal disease to not be subjected to pointless, expensive, extrodinary, and often agonizing procedures that would not restore or maintain their health. It was a means of allowing people to die with some semblance of dignity; a way of promoting comfort over an attempt to prevent what is ultimately the fate of all of us and a natural end to life--death.

Living wills were not intended as a means to kill those members of society who were handicapped and needed assistance with basic human needs--food and water. They were not intended as instruments for to be wielded to effect the suicide or murder of "defective" humans.

I was raised to be proud of my country--a serviceman's kid who respected and loved my country. I was raised to appreciate the freedom, opportunity, and ideals of my country, even when those goals could not be acheived perfectly by imperfect human beings.

Today, I am ashamed of the direction my country is headed in. A woman's life is being taken by good laws perverted to exploit the weakest and most defenseless of human beings--a helpless woman who is considered to be unworthy of her own life. An woman who has not commited a capital crime is being put to death by a means that would not be tolerated if one chose to apply them to a dog. She is being executed barbarically by deliberate starvation.

Some say the law has no right to intervene. Since when is killing another human being not a concern of the law? Since when is a person's decision to kill another member of their family sacred--a personal matter that does not bring detriment to society as a whole?

Since 1973, when Rowe vs. Wade opened a Pandora's box that made it acceptable to cull our ranks of those who are unwanted and inconvenient. It became acceptable to assign an arbitrary value to the life of another human being, and end that life based not upon just cause but upon "choice."

Who will be the next group of people to be relegated to the delete bin? The feeble-minded? The crippled? A troublesome ethnic group?

Maybe it looks familiar. It should.

And you think that I am the one who should write a book?

:sam:

 

[Crow]

And you think that I am the one who should write a book?

:sam:

Yup. Sozo. I honestly do.

 

[BillyBob]

You are both good writers. :up:

 

[Ninjashadow]

Why don't you two just write a book together? Movie scripts have been written by two people on each coast via fax machines and emails many times before. I don't see why you two couldn't do that for a book. Plus, you'd each only have to do half the work.

 

[cattyfan]

I've been away from here for a few days and during that time pages have been written here on the Terri Shiavo case.

I am weighing in with my opinion.

I think starving a woman is abhorrent. In one breath they tell us Terri won't feel a thing becauses she's a vegetable...in the next doctors testify starving to death is a euphoric experience.

If starving is euphoric, why aren't children in the Sudan dileriously happy? And if Terri can't feel, how can she be euphoric? And if she really isn't feeling any pain, why aren't they showing us pictures?

Michael Shiavo is a heartless, cowardly, son-of-a-b***h. I understand the legality of Michael making decisions for her, although he obviously abdicated hi role as a husband immediately after Terri became incapaciotated (or before, as some have said.)

I pray she really can't feel anything...we can't be sure, no matter how much some will pretend otherwise. I pray for her family. And I pray someday Michael will face the consequences for the evil and pain he has inflicted in his torture of a woman he swore before GOd to love, cherish, and protect until death do they part...not until he decided to move on. He's killing her for his convenience and for the money.

 

[Sozo]

Why don't you two just write a book together? Movie scripts have been written by two people on each coast via fax machines and emails many times before. I don't see why you two couldn't do that for a book. Plus, you'd each only have to do half the work.

:thumb:

Crow can make the points, and I'll just write the insults!

 

[keypurr]

Really? How do you father 2 children by a different woman with your life on hold?

How long did he wait? How old are the children?
Is he entitled to a life? Did he do everything he could to bring her back to A LIFE?
I don't know that, do you? If not, then why do you judge him? I don't.

 

[keypurr]

He shacked up with another woman and had 2 kids by her.

Oh yeah, his life is really "on hold".

Does this mean you will not give me a vote? I guess no body likes me anymore. :rain:

 

[keypurr]

Really? How do you father 2 children by a different woman with your life on hold?

I'll ask you how old are the children? Is he entitled to a life? Are HER parents entitled to a life?
I know I will not get the votes, but I have no problem with that. That is not my adgenda.
:rain: