Terry Schiavo allowed to die

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: realsup
The only proof is from her husband. And only after he recieved a $700,00 judgement to be used for her recovery and theropy. He got greedy tried to off his wife. Now all that money has gone to his fanatical want to kill alzhiemers patients too attorney.

Read something besides right-to-life sites and Fox before showing off your ignorance.

And please have the courtesy to actually read the thread you're reposting to before copying and pasting your predigested talking points.

The husband was not the only source of evidence for Schiavo's feelings on being kept alive in this condition. There is no credible evidence he has tried to "off" her, he wants her vegetative body to be allowed to rest in peace. He has turned down at least $1 million to walk away, and a rumored $10 million.

If you'd like to learn some facts about the case, abstract appeal

 

[realsup]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: realsup
The only proof is from her husband. And only after he recieved a $700,00 judgement to be used for her recovery and theropy. He got greedy tried to off his wife. Now all that money has gone to his fanatical want to kill alzhiemers patients too attorney.

Read something besides right-to-life sites and Fox before showing off your ignorance.

And please have the courtesy to actually read the thread you're reposting to before copying and pasting your predigested talking points.

The husband was not the only source of evidence for Schiavo's feelings on being kept alive in this condition. There is no credible evidence he has tried to "off" her, he wants her vegetative body to be allowed to rest in peace. He has turned down at least $1 million to walk away, and a rumored $10 million.

If you'd like to learn some facts about the case, abstract appeal

Oh yeah I only read Right to life sites and watch Foxnews ::yawn::

I have no TV and am not a Christian I am an Athiest who detests people who follow Eugenics.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: realsup

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: realsup
http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/focus/disabilities_02/disabilities.php

Originally posted by: arsbanned
umm, the fact that she must be fed with a tube indicates an inability to take food normally, one would presume. Otherwise this entire episode in American
retardedness would be moot.
Meanwhile, there are those idiots who would like President Bush to _send_in_the_Army....
Unbelievable.

About a dozen demonstrators -- many of them clergymen -- gathered in the rain in front of the White House yesterday, demanding that President Bush send the Army to collect Schiavo from the hospice so she could be fed. Failing that, Governor Bush could order the police to do so, said demonstrator Paul Schenck, executive director of the National Pro-Life Action Committee. ''When the judicial branch fails, then the executive branch is forced to act," said Schenck, who met Friday with White House staff.

Yeah, that's it, send in the jackbooted thugs to show those judges just who has the power.... :roll:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washi...3/24/final_plea_nears_for_schiavo?pg=2

Jackbooted thugs? That would indicate Nazis. That wouldn't be people trying to save her.

It's not their place to "save" her. There is verifiable proof she did not want to be kept alive in her current condition (according to all the courts this thing has gone in front of, including the Supreme Court).
I don't want the executive branch telling me what I can or cannot do within my own family regarding the right to die, when the courts are on my side. Nobody should be happy about the absolute fanaticism this administration is employing on a host of issues.

The only proof is from her husband. And only after he recieved a $700,00 judgement to be used for her recovery and theropy. He got greedy tried to off his wife. Now all that money has gone to his fanatical want to kill alzhiemers patients too attorney.

Pft. Come back when you have something. This is crud.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: realsup
Oh yeah I only read Right to life sites and watch Foxnews ::yawn::

I have no TV and am not a Christian I am an Athiest who detests people who follow Eugenics.

you're repeating their baseless talking points pretty well.

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: realsup
I have no TV and am not a Christian I am an Athiest who detests people who follow Eugenics.

Eugenics involves manipulating genes through breeding - i.e. the Nazis in WW2 killed off a lot of handicapped who had genetic diseases because of a eugenistic ideal.

I don't know how the hell you think Eugenics is involved here, but Terri Schiavo will not ever be breeding with anyone again, regardless of whether she lives or is allowed to peacefully pass. Further more, I don't see how it's Eugenics when a single person is under discussion, and not an entire reproducing society.

You're going to have to find some kind of real reason for "detesting" us, because Eugenics isn't even in play here.

Maybe you were looking for "Euthanasia", which, if you knew the definition of the word, is a merciful act.

I still don't understand how people can end their dog's life to prevent life-destroying suffering but are unwilling to allow fellow human beings the same treatment.

As far as I can tell, every case in this vein has been someone's personal wish to pass peacefully vs. the wants of others. Maybe I'm going to hell, but I think "others" in that instance are being pretty selfish. They have their own lives to attend to, and I certainly wouldn't stoop so low as to try and tell them how to live, or how to end living. It's insulting, disrespectful, and none of my business to begin wtih.

Maybe everyone but Michael and Terri should take notice and butt out - this isn't our business.

 

[dannybin1742]

man i was watching cnn tonight and they had this lady on who was in a coma but was semi consious in terms of what was being done to her body....... anyways her arguement was that since she was not dead, simply in a coma, terri must not be, and we should wait and see if she comes back. now what pissed me off is the basis of her arguement interms of her case and terri's case

btw this was on larry king

she did not go with oxygen for more than 5min, terri did, its a widely known fact that after 4 min your brain starts to die

everytime somone would ask her about her cat scan she would deflect the question, they also had a doctor on that (i think) had been one of the doctors at one of the 7 (or was it 12?) trials who HAD LOOKED AT HER CAT SCAN, and had seen that it was completely obvious that 90% of her cerebral cortex (the concious part of mans brain) was simply dead- it was fluid

now i'm not a doctor, but i could not beleive these people who think that she is going to come too- no braind- no conciousness, also about the settlement ($1M) shiavo's lawyer and himself has said on more than one occation explicitly that schiavo would not get one penny of that settlement, stop perpetuating your lie about he's in it for the money

for those of you who are for keeping her hooked up and religious i pose a question:

if its was god's will to take terry (hence the ability to not eat, and a non-functioning brain), then by putting her on a feeding tube and keeping her alive, aren't you defying god's will?

Rant over......

 

[Buz2b]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Buz2b
LOL! The problem with that argument is that you already have liberal judges playing the legislative role and changing/making laws with their rulings. Which is worse?!?! To me, both are wrong but you sure don't hear that from the left, now do you? Hipocracy at it's finest.
Sorry (Not!) to interrupt the left feeding frenzy here but I couldn't resist. You can go back to your bashing the "vast right wing conspiracy, religeous zealot, brow beating, war mongering Republicans" now. The truth interruption is over. :laugh:

Someone didn't pay attention in 'civics' class.

Throwing out a law is not 'legislating'.

I actually did well in Civics. Judges are there to adjudicate. Our elected officials are there to make laws according to the will of the people. Throwing out laws is the same as making new laws. That is not a judges job. Period. The point stands.

 

[realsup]

Originally posted by: dannybin1742
man i was watching cnn tonight and they had this lady on who was in a coma but was semi consious in terms of what was being done to her body....... anyways her arguement was that since she was not dead, simply in a coma, terri must not be, and we should wait and see if she comes back. now what pissed me off is the basis of her arguement interms of her case and terri's case

btw this was on larry king

she did not go with oxygen for more than 5min, terri did, its a widely known fact that after 4 min your brain starts to die

everytime somone would ask her about her cat scan she would deflect the question, they also had a doctor on that (i think) had been one of the doctors at one of the 7 (or was it 12?) trials who HAD LOOKED AT HER CAT SCAN, and had seen that it was completely obvious that 90% of her cerebral cortex (the concious part of mans brain) was simply dead- it was fluid

now i'm not a doctor, but i could not beleive these people who think that she is going to come too- no braind- no conciousness, also about the settlement ($1M) shiavo's lawyer and himself has said on more than one occation explicitly that schiavo would not get one penny of that settlement, stop perpetuating your lie about he's in it for the money

for those of you who are for keeping her hooked up and religious i pose a question:

if its was god's will to take terry (hence the ability to not eat, and a non-functioning brain), then by putting her on a feeding tube and keeping her alive, aren't you defying god's will?

Rant over......

She is not in a coma. Why did he have treatment for her until after he won at trial. Then spent all the money he was supposesed to use for treatment on lawyers to kill his wife. Why is he married to her when he has a new woman in his life.

He needs to move on divorce his wife let her family take care of her.

Also why doesnt the oh so great husband allow a MRI?

 

[realsup]

Originally posted by: Insomniak

Originally posted by: realsup
I have no TV and am not a Christian I am an Athiest who detests people who follow Eugenics.

Eugenics involves manipulating genes through breeding - i.e. the Nazis in WW2 killed off a lot of handicapped who had genetic diseases because of a eugenistic ideal.

I don't know how the hell you think Eugenics is involved here, but Terri Schiavo will not ever be breeding with anyone again, regardless of whether she lives or is allowed to peacefully pass. Further more, I don't see how it's Eugenics when a single person is under discussion, and not an entire reproducing society.

You're going to have to find some kind of real reason for "detesting" us, because Eugenics isn't even in play here.

Maybe you were looking for "Euthanasia", which, if you knew the definition of the word, is a merciful act.

I still don't understand how people can end their dog's life to prevent life-destroying suffering but are unwilling to allow fellow human beings the same treatment.

As far as I can tell, every case in this vein has been someone's personal wish to pass peacefully vs. the wants of others. Maybe I'm going to hell, but I think "others" in that instance are being pretty selfish. They have their own lives to attend to, and I certainly wouldn't stoop so low as to try and tell them how to live, or how to end living. It's insulting, disrespectful, and none of my business to begin wtih.

Maybe everyone but Michael and Terri should take notice and butt out - this isn't our business.

How is she suffering? You all claim there is nothing there.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: realsup
She is not in a coma. Why did he have treatment for her until after he won at trial. Then spent all the money he was supposesed to use for treatment on lawyers to kill his wife. Why is he married to her when he has a new woman in his life.

He needs to move on divorce his wife let her family take care of her.

Also why doesnt the oh so great husband allow a MRI?

You're still parroting the same right-to-life tripe that has been asked and answered already in this thread.

Next you'll bring up the "Nobel nominee" doctor, who is not really a nominee any more than I am, or the crazy nurse who thinks the husband, care staff, doctors and police are all in a conspiracy to hide that Terri Schiavo is "awake and talking."

If you want to make a credible contribution to this thread, try reading this page: Abstract appeal

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: realsupZzzzzzzzzzz

Wake us up when you have something good.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: realsup

Originally posted by: dannybin1742
man i was watching cnn tonight and they had this lady on who was in a coma but was semi consious in terms of what was being done to her body....... anyways her arguement was that since she was not dead, simply in a coma, terri must not be, and we should wait and see if she comes back. now what pissed me off is the basis of her arguement interms of her case and terri's case

btw this was on larry king

she did not go with oxygen for more than 5min, terri did, its a widely known fact that after 4 min your brain starts to die

everytime somone would ask her about her cat scan she would deflect the question, they also had a doctor on that (i think) had been one of the doctors at one of the 7 (or was it 12?) trials who HAD LOOKED AT HER CAT SCAN, and had seen that it was completely obvious that 90% of her cerebral cortex (the concious part of mans brain) was simply dead- it was fluid

now i'm not a doctor, but i could not beleive these people who think that she is going to come too- no braind- no conciousness, also about the settlement ($1M) shiavo's lawyer and himself has said on more than one occation explicitly that schiavo would not get one penny of that settlement, stop perpetuating your lie about he's in it for the money

for those of you who are for keeping her hooked up and religious i pose a question:

if its was god's will to take terry (hence the ability to not eat, and a non-functioning brain), then by putting her on a feeding tube and keeping her alive, aren't you defying god's will?

Rant over......

She is not in a coma. Why did he have treatment for her until after he won at trial. Then spent all the money he was supposesed to use for treatment on lawyers to kill his wife. Why is he married to her when he has a new woman in his life.

He needs to move on divorce his wife let her family take care of her.

Also why doesnt the oh so great husband allow a MRI?

What are you talking about? they allready took a cat scan.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: dannybin1742
for those of you who are for keeping her hooked up and religious i pose a question:

if its was god's will to take terry (hence the ability to not eat, and a non-functioning brain), then by putting her on a feeding tube and keeping her alive, aren't you defying god's will?

I have been amazed by the hypocracy of the Republicans and the Religious the last few years. They don't believe in Science yet it is Science keeping this woman's body alive.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Buz2b

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Buz2b
LOL! The problem with that argument is that you already have liberal judges playing the legislative role and changing/making laws with their rulings. Which is worse?!?! To me, both are wrong but you sure don't hear that from the left, now do you? Hipocracy at it's finest.
Sorry (Not!) to interrupt the left feeding frenzy here but I couldn't resist. You can go back to your bashing the "vast right wing conspiracy, religeous zealot, brow beating, war mongering Republicans" now. The truth interruption is over. :laugh:

Someone didn't pay attention in 'civics' class.

Throwing out a law is not 'legislating'.

I actually did well in Civics. Judges are there to adjudicate. Our elected officials are there to make laws according to the will of the people. Throwing out laws is the same as making new laws. That is not a judges job. Period. The point stands.

nope

 

[Pandaren]

:roll:

This is just pathetic:

Originally posted by: Buz2b
I actually did well in Civics. Judges are there to adjudicate. Our elected officials are there to make laws according to the will of the people. Throwing out laws is the same as making new laws. That is not a judges job. Period. The point stands.

F+ as best.

The ultimate will of the people is (in theory) expressed in the Constitution, which every 7th grader learns is the supreme law of the United States. Laws that are inconsistent with the Constitution are thus thrown out because the Constitution has top priority. Judges are required to do this in our system.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Article VI. Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States.

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: realsup

Originally posted by: Insomniak

Originally posted by: realsup
I have no TV and am not a Christian I am an Athiest who detests people who follow Eugenics.

Eugenics involves manipulating genes through breeding - i.e. the Nazis in WW2 killed off a lot of handicapped who had genetic diseases because of a eugenistic ideal.

I don't know how the hell you think Eugenics is involved here, but Terri Schiavo will not ever be breeding with anyone again, regardless of whether she lives or is allowed to peacefully pass. Further more, I don't see how it's Eugenics when a single person is under discussion, and not an entire reproducing society.

You're going to have to find some kind of real reason for "detesting" us, because Eugenics isn't even in play here.

Maybe you were looking for "Euthanasia", which, if you knew the definition of the word, is a merciful act.

I still don't understand how people can end their dog's life to prevent life-destroying suffering but are unwilling to allow fellow human beings the same treatment.

As far as I can tell, every case in this vein has been someone's personal wish to pass peacefully vs. the wants of others. Maybe I'm going to hell, but I think "others" in that instance are being pretty selfish. They have their own lives to attend to, and I certainly wouldn't stoop so low as to try and tell them how to live, or how to end living. It's insulting, disrespectful, and none of my business to begin wtih.

Maybe everyone but Michael and Terri should take notice and butt out - this isn't our business.

How is she suffering? You all claim there is nothing there.

She may not be physically suffering, but her dignity certainly is, and the more we all lap it up from CNN and Fox News, the more damage it does. The politicians are raping this women for votes, and the media are humping her for ad-time. They know you'll watch, so they can sell.

Actual suffering or lack thereof aside, what about respecting her wishes? What about respecting the laws of this country? What about respecting the trust placed between two spouses?

My position here is simple: Pro-freedom. The federal government and, really, the state government have no business being involved here.

As I already mentioned, this is between Terri, her legal guardian, and the pertinent medical personnel. The rest of us should take a hike.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Buz2b

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Buz2b
LOL! The problem with that argument is that you already have liberal judges playing the legislative role and changing/making laws with their rulings. Which is worse?!?! To me, both are wrong but you sure don't hear that from the left, now do you? Hipocracy at it's finest.
Sorry (Not!) to interrupt the left feeding frenzy here but I couldn't resist. You can go back to your bashing the "vast right wing conspiracy, religeous zealot, brow beating, war mongering Republicans" now. The truth interruption is over. :laugh:

Someone didn't pay attention in 'civics' class.

Throwing out a law is not 'legislating'.

I actually did well in Civics. Judges are there to adjudicate. Our elected officials are there to make laws according to the will of the people. Throwing out laws is the same as making new laws. That is not a judges job. Period. The point stands.

As others have already pointed out, you get a great big F for that response, because it is incorrect. This isn't a value judgement, it isn't a difference of opinion, your statement is just plain wrong and there's nothing to be done about it.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: dannybin1742

for those of you who are for keeping her hooked up and religious i pose a question:

if its was god's will to take terry (hence the ability to not eat, and a non-functioning brain), then by putting her on a feeding tube and keeping her alive, aren't you defying god's will?

Rant over......

I'm playing the devil's advocate here, (I've personally pulled the plug on quite a few people-I'm an ICU/ER nurse, and feel strongly that she should be allowed to die, as well as anyone else in her situation, and honestly, I'm against resources being used to keep people like this alive even if they want "everything done" - christ you wouldn't believe how many times I've heard that from ignorant people-"I want everything done" subtext: and I want tax dollars to pay for it...

Anyway, following your logic, one could say that god has allowed/helped us develop the technology to prolong life in her condition, did he not intend us to use it?

In some cases, agressive treatment is appropriate, but to keep anyone alive in a persistent vegatative state is wrong, IMHO.

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Anyway, following your logic, one could say that god has allowed/helped us develop the technology to prolong life in her condition, did he not intend us to use it?

Devil's Advocate #2: If that is indeed the case, did God not intend for the technology we developed for abortions to be used?

I like to throw things like this out there for consistency.

 

[wiin]

totalcommand said:

Finally, this poor woman will be allowed to pass away like she wanted to

You do not have proof of this. The husband, his lawyer, and the judge are so intent in seeing to it that this woman die that the law is being ignoredHow Liberalism Failed Terri Schiavo

Under the law of Florida, where the Schiavo case was adjudicated, the patient's prior wishes must be demonstrated with "clear and convincing evidence"--the highest standard of legal certainty in civil cases. In cases where this standard of proof is not met, the court must "err on the side of life," on the assumption that most people, even those who are profoundly disabled, would choose life rather than death. In other words, the state is not supposed to judge the comparative worth of different human beings, but to protect the right of individuals to decide for themselves when their lives would still have meaning. And in cases where the individual's wishes are uncertain, the state of Florida is charged to remain neutral by not imposing death. This is the aim of procedural liberalism--and this is where things went terribly wrong in the Schiavo case.



The Hapless Misadventures of the Pinellas County Court System: An incestuous tale

Judges are impartial, right? Not Judge George Greer, the judge that has ordered Terri Schiavo executed by starvation and dehydration, twice.



Who had the law changed?

Continuation for Request of Intervention on behalf of Terri Schiavo (October 21st)

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: dannybin1742

for those of you who are for keeping her hooked up and religious i pose a question:

if its was god's will to take terry (hence the ability to not eat, and a non-functioning brain), then by putting her on a feeding tube and keeping her alive, aren't you defying god's will?

Rant over......

I'm playing the devil's advocate here, (I've personally pulled the plug on quite a few people-I'm an ICU/ER nurse, and feel strongly that she should be allowed to die, as well as anyone else in her situation, and honestly, I'm against resources being used to keep people like this alive even if they want "everything done" - christ you wouldn't believe how many times I've heard that from ignorant people-"I want everything done" subtext: and I want tax dollars to pay for it...

Anyway, following your logic, one could say that god has allowed/helped us develop the technology to prolong life in her condition, did he not intend us to use it?

In some cases, agressive treatment is appropriate, but to keep anyone alive in a persistent vegatative state is wrong, IMHO.

What ever happens, happens because god wanted it that way. God, don't that sound stupid. How can anybody believe this sh1t.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Devil's Advocate #2: If that is indeed the case, did God not intend for the technology we developed for abortions to be used? I like to throw things like this out there for consistency.

Devil's Advocate #3: God provided the technology for us to prolong life, but like the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden, when abused it can lead to sin.

Technology in and of itself is morally neutral...application of technology can be immoral or moral...but even the morality of said application is not black & white, otherwise you wouldn't have people debating over it.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: wiin
totalcommand said:

Finally, this poor woman will be allowed to pass away like she wanted to

You do not have proof of this. The husband, his lawyer, and the judge are so intent in seeing to it that this woman die that the law is being ignoredHow Liberalism Failed Terri Schiavo

Under the law of Florida, where the Schiavo case was adjudicated, the patient's prior wishes must be demonstrated with "clear and convincing evidence"--the highest standard of legal certainty in civil cases. In cases where this standard of proof is not met, the court must "err on the side of life," on the assumption that most people, even those who are profoundly disabled, would choose life rather than death. In other words, the state is not supposed to judge the comparative worth of different human beings, but to protect the right of individuals to decide for themselves when their lives would still have meaning. And in cases where the individual's wishes are uncertain, the state of Florida is charged to remain neutral by not imposing death. This is the aim of procedural liberalism--and this is where things went terribly wrong in the Schiavo case.



The Hapless Misadventures of the Pinellas County Court System: An incestuous tale

Judges are impartial, right? Not Judge George Greer, the judge that has ordered Terri Schiavo executed by starvation and dehydration, twice.



Who had the law changed?

Continuation for Request of Intervention on behalf of Terri Schiavo (October 21st)

Its interesting that you think the standard of proof hasn't been met seeing as you weren't present at the trials and privy to the information at them. EVERY judge to hear this case has sided with Mr. Shiavo. That's a telling fact. I'd believe one or two judges could make a mistake, but every single one of them? Face it, you're wrong.

 

[arsbanned]

Wow, the crazies are out in force. All the judges , allll the way up to to and including the Supreme Court are wrong?
Yeah. OK. :roll:

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Wow, the crazies are out in force. All the judges , allll the way up to to and including the Supreme Court are wrong?
Yeah. OK. :roll:

Yeah, like they were in 2000, huh?