← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Hugh Lincoln
Thread ID: 17388 | Posts: 114 | Started: 2005-03-18
2005-03-18 20:07 | User Profile
I have pro-life sympathies, but the Terry Schiavo business is annoying the crap out of me.
[url]http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050318/D88TII400.html[/url]
Too many idiot Republicans running around preening as "champions of life" for whatever maneuvering they're doing. Meanwhile, they seem to care very little for the lives -- actual and resulting quality -- of the masses of whites who are crushed by illegal immigration and the joys of diversity. It also plays into what I consider the annoying vegetable worship our society engages in. We all act like little girls, cooing over the lame, the dumb, the unable, the unproductive, the hopeless. We make a fetish of the retarded. We lavish them with resources, medicines, attention, special education and so on. Meanwhile, we deny proper resources to the hale and hearty. We say crap like, "we shall be judged by the way we treat the least." I reject this with a bitch slap.
I'm not suggesting that a decent society doesn't afford some measure of care to the helpless -- it certainly does -- but it can go overboard. I'm also not suggesting that poor Ms. Schiavo doesn't deserve our pity. But at some point, give it a rest. The call it "The Humane Society." What they do is kill cats and dogs. And it's a good thing.
How about if Tom DeLay takes Terry Schiavo's doughy intubated body into his damn office so that he can personally change her diapers? Until one or the other dies?
Hate to agree with Waxjew, but it is a farce and a misuse of Congressional power.
2005-03-18 20:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln]Too many idiot Republicans running around preening as "champions of life" for whatever maneuvering they're doing. .[/QUOTE] Not Jorge Bush! He's definitely an idiot and Republican, but he hasn't done jacksh*t.
2005-03-18 20:24 | User Profile
I consider this to be a state issue, not a federal. The only reason the "conservatives" on the radio and tv are making a big issue about this is a sop to the right to life movement under the guise of being concerned about euthanasia.
2005-03-18 20:41 | User Profile
Apparently, Terri Schiavo has been in her present condition for 15 years or so?? Will she ever get better, at least to be able to eat normally? How many other cases like Schiavo's are out there pending. Does the fact that Schiavo's in Bush Florida country make it a sensational case?
I think the RepublicRats are using this woman's case to batter and abuse the DemoncRats' typcially pro-choice stance and the media laps it up like a thirsty dog on a summer day. Afterwards, both parties will pat each other on the back and split the bill and sleep like babies at night.
Just another distraction du jour in bizarro world.
2005-03-18 20:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]I consider this to be a state issue, not a federal. The only reason the "conservatives" on the radio and tv are making a big issue about this is a sop to the right to life movement under the guise of being concerned about euthanasia.[/QUOTE] I agree that some politicians are trying to use this issue for political gain, but that doesn't mean that the woman should be put down. She can still breathe on her own, so if the feeding tube is removed, then she will slowly starve to death over the next 2-3 days. Her ex-husband seems obsessed with killing her for some reason, even though her parents are the ones taking care of her. I don't see any justification for killing her. As for what is a state issue and what is federal, I agree that this should be a state issue. However, the feds long ago decided that they will stick their noses in wherever they wish, so that is a moot point. If they are already trampling on state sovereignty, they might as well occasionally do some good thereby.
2005-03-18 20:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]I agree that some politicians are trying to use this issue for political gain, but that doesn't mean that the woman should be put down. She can still breathe on her own, so if the feeding tube is removed, then she will slowly starve to death over the next 2-3 days. Her ex-husband seems obsessed with killing her for some reason, even though her parents are the ones taking care of her. I don't see any justification for killing her. As for what is a state issue and what is federal, I agree that this should be a state issue. However, the feds long ago decided that they will stick their noses in wherever they wish, so that is a moot point. If they are already trampling on state sovereignty, they might as well occasionally do some good thereby.[/QUOTE]I think her husband is the only sensible one in the family. He is the only one who is not trying to keep this woman around for his own selfish reasons. I know it must be difficult for her family to, first, face a decision like this, themselves, and then loose and be forced to accept the decision that was made for them, but enough is enough, the woman is very close to being brain dead. She is a vegetable and she would have been for the rest of her life. I can't imagine if she was somehow able to have a say in this she would want to remain alive in the state she is in. I know I wouldn't.
But you are right about certain people's political motivations.
[QUOTE]
How about if Tom DeLay takes Terry Schiavo's doughy intubated body into his damn office so that he can personally change her diapers? Until one or the other dies
[/QUOTE]
LOL.
2005-03-18 21:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]I think her husband is the only sensible one in the family. He is the only one who is not trying to keep this woman around for his own selfish reasons. I know it must be difficult for her family to, first, face a decision like this, themselves, and then loose and be forced to accept the decision that was made for them, but enough is enough, the woman is very close to being brain dead. She is a vegetable and she would have been for the rest of her life. I can't imagine if she was somehow able to have a say in this she would want to remain alive in the state she is in. I know I wouldn't.
But you are right about certain people's political motivations.
LOL.[/QUOTE] I have also heard that she can laugh and react (in small ways, such as fluttering her eyelids) to stimuli. Maybe she is brain-dead, and maybe she isn't, but what exactly is gained by killing her?
2005-03-18 21:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln]We all act like little girls, cooing over the lame, the dumb, the unable, the unproductive, the hopeless. We make a fetish of the retarded. We lavish them with resources, medicines, attention, special education and so on. Meanwhile, we deny proper resources to the hale and hearty. We say crap like, "we shall be judged by the way we treat the least." I reject this with a bitch slap.[/QUOTE]
Repugnant. :angry:
2005-03-18 21:11 | User Profile
Here is Noonan on the chuckle, and other thoughts:
[url]http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110006442[/url]
Speaking of respect for state matters, shouldn't there be a clear-cut Florida law answer to the question of whether hubby or parents can make this call? If at all? I would think spouse controls here, if he's still legally married to her.
It appears I'm on the losing side of popular opinion on this one, but I wonder if it's correct to call removal of the tube a "killing" in the sense of a murder. Noonan says hubby wants to "kill" his wife, and I just don't know if that's good characterization. If she can breathe on her own, but can't move her body to get up and get a sandwich, that's a persistent vegetative state. And hey, what about this guy? He's in a spot. He'd look like a cad for divorcing her (though he'd have grounds), but do we really want to hold his life in limbo for decades over this?
Maybe he should get a divorce and let mom and dad change the diapers if they're so keen on it.
2005-03-18 21:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]I have also heard that she can laugh and react (in small ways, such as fluttering her eyelids) to stimuli. Maybe she is brain-dead, and maybe she isn't, but what exactly is gained by killing her?[/QUOTE] I wonder if those are things that are basically being imagined by the family who was trying to grasp onto some type of false hope that she would one day come out of this state. Fluttering eyelids especially, can be involuntary reactions which doesn't mean anything. I don't know how to honestly answer what is gained by killing her, but can you answer what is gained by keeping her alive?
2005-03-18 21:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Repugnant. :angry:[/QUOTE]
I'll have to stick by what I said. I'm sure that under any imaginable Christian teaching, moral code or ethical system, to divert disproportionate resources to hopeless cases, thereby denying hopeful ones, is itself immoral. It's immoral because it allows us all to feel good about ourselves and doesn't accomplish any concrete good in the meantime. That is, liberalism distilled. It's so bloody easy for anyone to step forward and proclaim their righteousness on the issue because they know they won't ever have to become personally involved or get their hands dirty. It's low-risk moral investing.
In the United States, we spend billions on something called "special education." It's mandated under federal and many state laws that "special" students, i.e. ineducable ones, must nevertheless be given whatever is necessary to education them. Even if they won't ever become so. Most of the "special" students are blacks and Hispanics whose "special" status is a product of genetics. Some are white and simply not that bright. Yet they are entitled to bottomless funding. Some are even entitled to 24-hour care at taxpayer expense. They get one-on-one teacher ratios, nice facilities, you name it. And what you get at the end is someone who may or may not be able to hold a menial job. You could have gotten that a lot cheaper. In one small New Jersey town, the entire school district had to shut down the art, music and gym programs because of the high cost of "educating" ONE special education student. Now that is utter robbery.
2005-03-18 21:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln]I'll have to stick by what I said. I'm sure that under any imaginable Christian teaching, moral code or ethical system, to divert disproportionate resources to hopeless cases, thereby denying hopeful ones, is itself immoral. [/QUOTE]
A settlement of 1.1 million dollars awarded should be more than enough to pay for Terri's care for the rest of her life. It's not like any of your money or my money should be needed.
What about the old folks who can no longer take care of themselves?
What about Christopher Reeve. After his accident, he was a pretty worthless drain on resources.
2005-03-18 21:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln]Noonan says hubby wants to "kill" his wife, and I just don't know if that's good characterization. If she can breathe on her own, but can't move her body to get up and get a sandwich, that's a persistent vegetative state. If it's simply a matter of whether someone can 'get up and get a sandwich', then I suppose infants and quadriplegics should be starved to death, too?
[QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln]And hey, what about this guy? He's in a spot. He'd look like a cad for divorcing her (though he'd have grounds), but do we really want to hold his life in limbo for decades over this? I thought he had already divorced her.
[QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln]Maybe he should get a divorce and let mom and dad change the diapers if they're so keen on it.[/QUOTE]I believe that is exactly what happened. Her parents volunteered to take care of her, and they have been doing so. He doesn't have to do anything, except not kill her. That is why I don't understand his singleminded determination to make sure she dies.
2005-03-18 21:35 | User Profile
This is a very difficult area. When Karen Ann Quinland had her respirator removed, and still continued to live, food and water became redefined as medical treatment that could also be withheld. The next logical step is euthanasia and assisted suicide.
And yet, when my stepfather had terminal cancer and could no longer swallow food or water, he refused a tube. It took him a week to die. I see nothing wrong in his decision, though some might argue that it was an act of suicide.
2005-03-18 21:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]I wonder if those are things that are basically being imagined by the family who was trying to grasp onto some type of false hope that she would one day come out of this state. Fluttering eyelids especially, can be involuntary reactions which doesn't mean anything. That is possible. [QUOTE=starr]I don't know how to honestly answer what is gained by killing her, but can you answer what is gained by keeping her alive?[/QUOTE]You don't need to gain anything to justify not killing someone. On the other hand, a very good reason is needed for an execution.
2005-03-18 21:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Stanley]This is a very difficult area. When Karen Ann Quinland had her respirator removed, and still continued to live, food and water became redefined as medical treatment that could also be withheld. The next logical step is euthanasia and assisted suicide.[/QUOTE] This is exactly what concerns me. If extraordinary measures were being taken to keep her alive, and she clearly couldn't survive without a machine, then that is one thing. In this case, however, the only thing she is being given is food and water, albeit through a tube. That is nourishment, not medical treatment. To simply remove the tube is really no different from starving someone to death.
2005-03-18 21:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]That is possible. You don't need to gain anything to justify not killing someone. On the other hand, a very good reason is needed for an execution.[/QUOTE] I did not really follow this story all that much. I just saw a press conference from the husband's attorney in which he said that the woman was still healthy she had expressed her wishes not to be kept alive in this way. He did not get into if she had ever signed any type of DNR order or whatever exactly something like this would be. Does anyone know more about this?
If this is true, then why the hell did they keep this woman alive as long as they did. And how could they legally go against her expressed desires? I don't get it.
2005-03-18 21:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]To simply remove the tube is really no different from starving someone to death.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. It's murder, plain and simple.
2005-03-18 22:04 | User Profile
Its the principle of the thing; Ms. Schiavo is constantly described as being "in a vegetative state," yet she is fully conscious, and expresses visible delight when her parents come to visit her. You don't starve to death someone like that (especially a member of one's own extended kin group - we're talking about a cousin of ours, lest one forget).
2005-03-18 22:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]This is exactly what concerns me. If extraordinary measures were being taken to keep her alive, and she clearly couldn't survive without a machine, then that is one thing. In this case, however, the only thing she is being given is food and water, albeit through a tube. That is nourishment, not medical treatment. To simply remove the tube is really no different from starving someone to death.[/QUOTE] The Catholic Church has a well developed theory of medical ethics.
Basically, you can do anything to alleviate pain, even if you know that it will hasten death, for example. And you don't have to undertake heroic measures in these sorts of cases. But the one thing you can never morally do is to deny a sick person food and water.
This is just awful. The fact that we're even considering pulling a FEEDING TUBE from a desparately sick woman shows just how far we've slid toward the abyss.
And you know this is all just about money. Don't want to pay for the hospital bed.
In my opinion as a society we look more and more not like pagan Rome but rather like pagan Carthage. It's all about money, you see. Burn babies alive to Baal, but get that darned shipload of olive oil in port!
2005-03-18 22:09 | User Profile
I do agree that removing someone's feeding tube is a harsh way to go about this. It may sound strange, and I know a lot of people would be bitching and saying it is murder, and all, but why can't they give some type of lethal injection like they when they execute a murderer on death row?
[QUOTE] In the United States, we spend billions on something called "special education." It's mandated under federal and many state laws that "special" students, i.e. ineducable ones, must nevertheless be given whatever is necessary to education them. Even if they won't ever become so. Most of the "special" students are blacks and Hispanics whose "special" status is a product of genetics. Some are white and simply not that bright. Yet they are entitled to bottomless funding. Some are even entitled to 24-hour care at taxpayer expense. They get one-on-one teacher ratios, nice facilities, you name it. And what you get at the end is someone who may or may not be able to hold a menial job. You could have gotten that a lot cheaper. In one small New Jersey town, the entire school district had to shut down the art, music and gym programs because of the high cost of "educating" ONE special education student. Now that is utter robbery.
[/QUOTE]First off, I just feel the need to say that not every child in special ed is a retard or uneducatable. But I do agree with the basic idea of what you are saying. In the case of the mentally retarded, what exactly is all this money being spent on? Just to "educate" the retard enough so that they can contribute to society with their future all-important job of, say, working at some fast food joint flipping burgers? Their presence at such places is always deeply disturbing to me.:eek:
2005-03-18 22:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Her ex-husband seems obsessed with killing her for some reason, even though her parents are the ones taking care of her.
He will be collecting a good deal of life insurance money upon her death.
[QUOTE=Quantrill]the feds long ago decided that they will stick their noses in wherever they wish, so that is a moot point. If they are already trampling on state sovereignty, they might as well occasionally do some good thereby.[/QUOTE]
Bingo! If the good people are going to take it up the figurative arse everytime federalism is up for debate, we might as well be able to benefit from that vile state of affairs once in a while as well. I'm just not enough of a natural born loser to be able to condone the position of "anti-federalism when it benefits the leftists/neo-cons, and pro-federalism when it benefits the leftists/noe-cons," which is what carping on federalism in this case essentially amounts to an advocacy of.
2005-03-18 22:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]I know it must be difficult for her family to, first, face a decision like this, themselves, and then loose and be forced to accept the decision that was made for them, but enough is enough, the woman is very close to being brain dead. She is a vegetable
You are mistaken about her status. The medical use of the term "vegetative state" is not identicial to the common usage of "a vegetable." She is awake & conscious. She smiles and laughs. She is, sadly, so badly brain-damaged as to be very seriously retarded, and is thus unable to go to the bathroom or eat (she chokes on food & liquid, as she doesn't realize she needs to stop breathing when she swallows) on her own. She is simply [B]NOT in a coma[/B], or anything remotely like that, as people seem to believe, due to the persistent media depiction of her being in "a vegatative state," which is a specific medical term that means something other than what people assume it to mean (which the media is fully aware of, and thus is doing an effective job in deceiving and manipulating you, and millions of others). The woman expresses visible joy when her parents come to visit her; [B]she is most decidedly NOT "close to being brain dead."[/B]
2005-03-18 22:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln]I'm sure that under any imaginable Christian teaching, moral code or ethical system, to divert disproportionate resources to hopeless cases, thereby denying hopeful ones, is itself immoral.[/QUOTE]
In Haiti or Chad, you'd have a point. Our society does not want for the resources being expended on keeping Ms. Schiavo alive.
[quote=Hugh Lincoln]In one small New Jersey town, the entire school district had to shut down the art, music and gym programs because of the high cost of "educating" ONE special education student. Now that is utter robbery.
Your basic point that our society unfortunately makes a worshipful fetish out of the botched and the worthless is entirely valid. Your suspected underlying point that Christianity has a lot of responsibility to bear for this suicidally insane drivel is not entirely without merit either. But this does not justify killing Ms. Schiavo.
2005-03-18 22:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]You are mistaken about her status. The medical use of the term "vegetative state" is not identicial to the common usage of "a vegetable." She is awake & conscious. She smiles and laughs. She is, sadly, so badly brain-damaged as to be very seriously retarded, and is thus unable to go to the bathroom or eat (she chokes on food & liquid, as she doesn't realize she needs to stop breathing when she swallows) on her own. She is simply NOT in a coma, or anything remotely like that, as people seem to believe, due to the persistent media depiction of her being in "a vegatative state," which is a specific medical term that means something other than what people assume it to mean (which the media is fully aware of, and thus is doing an effective job in deceiving and manipulating you, and millions of others). The woman expresses visible joy when her parents come to visit her; she is most decidedly NOT "close to being brain dead."[/QUOTE] What kind of life is what you describe here? Would you want to live like this? How did she become like this, exactly?
2005-03-18 22:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill] I thought he had already divorced her.[/QUOTE]
He has consistently refused to sign a document permitting a divorce. He has, however, moved in with another woman with whom he has multiple children. Ho won't collect any life insurance money upon her death unless they remain married, according to Ms. Schiavo's parent's attorney.
2005-03-18 22:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Stanley]when my stepfather had terminal cancer and could no longer swallow food or water, he refused a tube. It took him a week to die. I see nothing wrong in his decision, though some might argue that it was an act of suicide.[/QUOTE]
He was the one who refused. Even if we regard suicide as a sin, he was the one committing it. Big difference.
In my humble estimation, its not suicide to consciously decide that once your illness makes it impossible for you to eat in the standard manner, that you would prefer not to explore alternative methods of nutritional sustenance. Its something else entirely to be deciding this for other people, however.
2005-03-18 22:41 | User Profile
Tube removed.
[url]http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050318/D88TKRG82.html[/url]
According to this story, doctors said her brain damage was so severe that she would never regain cognitive abilities.
I see that hubby is now no longer hubby, but guardian, and has kids by his girlfriend. So he's gotten on with his life. It is weird that he wouldn't give up guardianship to his parents if they want to keep her on a feeding tube, but not that weird: if he's correct that she told him she doesn't want extraordinary measures, he's doing the right thing. Have y'all ever seen that horror movie where a person, after an accident, is 100 percent paralyzed (and thought dead), but has complete consciousness? That to me sounds like being buried alive. I'd rather go to my maker than hang on in a perpetual state of limbo. Keeping someone alive who will never regain cognitive abilities doesn't sound like "respect" for life to me, it sounds like bizarre fetishism. Why not dress her up in funny clothes as she lies there in her bed, or have her pose with stuffed animals? If that creeps you out, that's basically what all the clowns running around Congress are doing. I mean, that's just freaky, people. This isn't about Terry, really: it's about her parents and THEIR desires, or her husband and HIS, or Tom DeLay's and HIS. What's best for this woman?
This isn't like babies, old people or quads. Babies grow up. Old people and quads have their mental faculties and can interact. Of course, these boundaries are never crystal clear, but we can establish standards for what is life and what isn't. And I'm personally in favor of a liberal interpretation. By all means, expend the resources for a quad to have a meaningful life: gizmo wheelchair, feeding, care, etc. But the Schiavo business is beyond that.
2005-03-18 22:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]What kind of life is what you describe here? Would you want to live like this?
No, I wouldn't, but my consciousness is much more complex than the one Ms. Schiavo retains. In many respects, she retains a consciousness that is more animal in nature (albeit with a human root). And I've never seen an animal that didn't want its life prolonged to the maximum extent.
[QUOTE=starr]How did she become like this, exactly?[/QUOTE]
No one seems to know. X-ray evidence from years after the event seems to suggest, however, that Ms. Schiavo was the victim of frequent and severe beatings, presumably by the husband who now stands to gain financially from her death.
2005-03-18 23:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE][QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]No, I wouldn't, but my consciousness is much more complex than the one Ms. Schiavo retains. In many respects, she retains a consciousness that is more animal in nature (albeit with a human root). And I've never seen an animal that didn't want its life prolonged to the maximum extent.[/QUOTE] While you were correct in saying that she is not clinically brain dead, she is severely brain-damaged. In a sense, she is almost like a zombie, and like Hugh said there is almost something a bit creapy about keeping people like this alive. If Terry could have seen into the future, I seriously doubt that she would want to be kept alive in this way. So my question was more about if you, could look into your future, and for example, ten years from now, saw that you were going to be in a similar circumstance, would you want to be allowed to die rather then be forced to live in such a way?
[QUOTE]
No one seems to know. X-ray evidence from years after the event seems to suggest, however, that Ms. Schiavo was the victim of frequent and severe beatings, presumably by the husband who now stands to gain financially from her death.
[/QUOTE]
How could they not know? That seems beyond bizarre.
2005-03-18 23:54 | User Profile
Very interesting thread here.
A few thoughts. The question of voluntarily removing a feeding tube is interesting. If someone is 70 and terminally ill anyway, that's one thing. The question for a young woman with potentially years to live is more difficult.
With due respect to all commentators, I think Quantrill has hit several home runs here. This is not someone on artificial life support. We're talking about mere food and drink, albeit admnistered artificially. (If I'm not mistaken, she would probably die of dehydration before she would starve, as though she were stranded in a desert.) If a young baby were deprived in such a way, we would be prosecuting for murder.
Frankly even if she wanted this I would not be comfortable with allowing it. It would just be form of assisted suicide.
2005-03-19 00:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]While you were correct in saying that she is not clinically brain dead, she is severely brain-damaged. In a sense, she is almost like a zombie, and like Hugh said there is almost something a bit creapy about keeping people like this alive.
What's wrong with you people? I can't believe the despicable and morally repugnant views being expressed here. This woman is alive and only needs the help of a feeding tube to stay that way. Essentially this is no different situation than an infant or 18 month old, for that matter. Are we to murder an infant when and if their mother or father decides they are an inconvenience to them? C'mon people, to think otherwise is barbaric and just flat-out sick and twisted. Now if she was comatose and required a breathing machine, I think a valid case could be made to end life support. But this is certainly not the case here.
If Terry could have seen into the future, I seriously doubt that she would want to be kept alive in this way.
How in the heck do you know that? How do we know she won't fully recover? Just the other day a girl woke up from a coma of something like seven years! These so-called doctors most certainly do NOT know everything and it is their sworn duty to protect and preserve life, not kill people by starving them to death.
So my question was more about if you, could look into your future, and for example, ten years from now, saw that you were going to be in a similar circumstance, would you want to be allowed to die rather then be forced to live in such a way?
That's God's decision, not my own. We don't know that she is in any pain. She obviously interacts with her parents. But that's not the issue here. The issue is one's basic right to life. If you believe that removing this poor lady's feeding tube and starving her to death is morally justified, then you are swinging open a door to mankind's complete depravity. I do not want that society/culture for my children and grandchildren and will fight you every step of the way until my own dying breath.
2005-03-19 00:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE]
Frankly even if she wanted this I would not be comfortable with allowing it. It would just be form of assisted suicide.
[/QUOTE] This is an interesting comment. If she could communicate, somehow, that she wanted to die, you would still see this as wrong, why? Shouldn't a decision such as that be left up to the indivdual, who would be the one forced to live like this?
2005-03-19 00:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]If she could communicate, somehow, that she wanted to die, you would still see this as wrong, why?[/QUOTE]
No one is required to eat & drink, so to speak, if they'd rather not.
2005-03-19 00:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE][QUOTE=Texas Dissident]What's wrong with you people? I can't believe the despicable and morally repugnant views being expressed here. This woman is alive and only needs the help of a feeding tube to stay that way. Essentially this is no different situation than an infant or 18 month old, for that matter. Are we to murder an infant when and if their mother or father decides they are an inconvenience to them? C'mon people, to think otherwise is barbaric and just flat-out sick and twisted. Now if she was comatose and required a breathing machine, I think a valid case could be made to end life support. But this is certainly not the case here.[/QUOTE]The difference in your flawed comparison is that the 18 month old child is going to grow up and have a normal life. This woman is never going to be capable of having any kind of normal life. She is most likely never going to get beyond the stage she is at right now. If I wanted to take such an angry view on those who disagree with what I say, as you are doing, I would say your thinking is "barbaric" and "just flat out sick" in thinking this woman she be forced to continue living this non-life. You are probably just a "good" republican taking the "good" republican view and not seeing beyond that.
[QUOTE]How in the heck do you know that? How do we know she won't fully recover? Just the other day a girl woke up from a coma of something like seven years! These so-called doctors most certainly do NOT know everything and it is their sworn duty to protect and preserve life, not kill people by starving them to death. [/QUOTE]You are right. Things such as that do happen, but how often?
[QUOTE]That's God's decision, not my own. We don't know that she is in any pain. She obviously interacts with her parents. But that's not the issue here. The issue is one's basic right to life. If you believe that removing this poor lady's feeding tube and starving her to death is morally justified, then you are swinging open a door to mankind's complete depravity. I do not want that society/culture for my children and grandchildren and will fight you every step of the way until my own dying breath[/QUOTE]How did I just know that "god" was going to make an entrance into this conversation. Just a very simple question here. If "god" did not want this to be so, why no miraculous healing that would make this removal of the feeding tube unneccesary. Do you know "god" personally? And have the people, that have kept this woman around, not been playing "god" themselves by keeping her alive by artificial means for 15 years?
2005-03-19 01:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]The difference in your flawed comparison is that the 18 month old child is going to grow up and have a normal life. This woman is never going to be capable of having any kind of normal life.
Maybe, maybe not. The bottom line is that YOU DON"T KNOW and therefore are not qualified to make the decision to kill someone.
If I wanted to take such an angry view on those who disagree with what I say, as you are doing, I would say your thinking is "barbaric" and "just flat out sick" in thinking this woman she be forced to continue living this non-life. You are probably just a "good" republican taking the "good" republican view and not seeing beyond that.
No, I'm simply a man who is admittedly angered by your thoroughly offensive views and seeming moral depravity.
Things such as that do happen, but how often?
Sometimes, sometimes not. Again, we just don't know.
How did I just know that "god" was going to make an entrance into this conversation.
On any issue involving life, let's hope He always does.
Just a very simple question here. If "god" did not want this to be so, why no miraculous healing that would make this removal of the feeding tube unneccesary.
I don't know. One thing I do know is that God is God and I'm not. One is well served in life to always remember that one basic fact.
Do you know "god" personally?
Well yes, I do. But with the essential caveat that it is certainly not because of anything I've done, but rather what God has made known to me.
And have the people, that have kept this woman around, not been playing "god" themselves by keeping her alive by artificial means?[/QUOTE]
Feeding her is artificial means?? Heaven help us if we are at the point in our world where feeding otherwise helpless people of any age or ability is considered 'playing God' and shunned as such. What if your own mother had felt that way?
2005-03-19 01:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln]I have pro-life sympathies,
Don't kid yourself, jack.
Too many idiot Republicans running around preening as "champions of life" for whatever maneuvering they're doing. Meanwhile, they seem to care very little for the lives -- actual and resulting quality -- of the masses of whites who are crushed by illegal immigration and the joys of diversity. [/Quote]
Perhaps ... if you weren't some slackjawed white supremacist, you might have realized long ago that the GOP has always shared your concerns over "down breeding" and worked very hard to supply the means by which unfit (like Terri) may be quickly offed (prevented or aborted) and "using the techniques we now use for cattle", more superior "genetic quality" could be bred instead.
The only lunkheads in this story are the rank and file Pubbies who believe for a moment that the GOP is "pro-life" when -- instead -- it makes Hitler and his fascist "applied biology" look hamfisted in comparison.
2005-03-19 01:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE][QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Maybe, maybe not. The bottom line is that YOU DON"T KNOW and therefore are not qualified to make the decision to kill someone.[/QUOTE]So you honestly believe there is a chance she could have come out of this state and resume some sense of a normal life? And that she would not be, at least, severely mentally handicapped?
[QUOTE]No, I'm simply a man who is admittedly angered by your thoroughly offensive views and seeming moral depravity.[/QUOTE]What is my offensive views and moral depravity? You brought up God. Why should this family(and already mentioned "good" republicans) keep this woman around for their own purposes instead of letting nature take its course and allowing her to move on to a better existence?
[QUOTE]I don't know. One thing I do know is that God is God and I'm not. One is well served in life to always remember that one basic fact.[/QUOTE]You are right. That can be applied to either side in this issue.
[QUOTE] Feeding her is artificial means?? Heaven help us if we are at the point in our world where feeding otherwise helpless people of any age or ability is considered 'playing God' and shunned as such. What if your own mother had felt that way? [/QUOTE]Yes, if an adult has to be fed through a feeding tube and most likely will for their rest of their lives that is artificial means, IMO.
2005-03-19 01:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]So you honestly believe there is a chance she could have come out of this state and resume some sense of a normal life? And that she would not be, at least, severely mentally handicapped?
So what if she was? Are we now in the business of starving to death, or rather murdering, those among us who are incapable of living a normal life? Quadraplegics? Retarded people? Autistics? Infants abused by their parents and no longer wanted? You see once you open that door then there's really no moral argument to ever stop killing those deemed 'inconvenient'.
What is my offensive views and moral depravity?
That you believe we are justified in killing a person who we judge as 'incapable of leading a normal life' or requires assistance to eat.
You brought up God. Why should this family(and already mentioned "good" republicans) keep this woman around for their own purposes instead of letting nature take its course and allowing her to move on to a better existence?
Why do we feed and care for our children and elderly? Mainly I would say, because of love.
2005-03-19 01:37 | User Profile
I strongly doubt the existence of a "personal God" who gives a hoot about what happens to human beings. Yet I think this woman should be cared for and kept alive, God or no God, unless it's (1) absolutely clear that she would not have wanted to be kept alive in her current condition, or (2) it's absolutely certain that she's brain-dead. Number (2) is definitely not the case, and number (1) is far from certain.
Why should Ms. Schiavo be kept alive? Because human compassion has a very real function in society. Compassion for others, particularly those who are helpless and rely on others, gives everyone in society the strength to do their best in life without needing to constantly fear for their own welfare or that of their loved ones in case of a terrible accident that renders someone an invalid. It makes society stronger by freeing people to focus on more productive activities than worrying about what will happen to them or to their families. If human beings functioned best in "dog eat dog" societies, then our natural instincts would lead us in that direction. But even ferocious wild animals cooperate and show a measure of compassion for others in their group (e.g., lions). There is a good reason for that -- it makes the group stronger.
Most people (even evil unbelievers like me) feel sorrow when they see human suffering like that of Terry Schiavo. We ignore or suppress those instinctive feelings at our peril. Christians may feel that this sorrow is inspired by God. Not to step on any toes, but that actually makes little sense: according to Christianity, every human being is worthy of nothing but the greatest suffering, and hence Terry Schiavo is only getting a wee fraction of the suffering she deserves. I say that no human being deserves to suffer unless they've deliberately made others suffer, and Terry Schiavo has done nothing to harm others to such an extent. She should be kept alive, and so should all other people who are helpless and dependent on others (again, unless they've made their wishes to the contrary known).
2005-03-19 01:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]...according to Christianity, every human being is worthy of nothing but the greatest suffering, and hence Terry Schiavo is only getting a wee fraction of the suffering she deserves.
You left off half the equation, Angler. In fact, the infinitely more important half. Yes, we are all sinners who justly deserve God's eternal punishment, but the good news is that in spite of that, God loved each and every one of us enough to send his son Jesus Christ into the world to suffer and die on the Cross to pay the eternal price for our sins. It is because of God's grace and Christ's work on the Cross that we have value and worth as human beings originally made in the image of God himself.
You cannot make the argument for human compassion towards others without a personal God whose love for us gives each of us our true worth and the example of how we should treat our fellow human beings.
2005-03-19 01:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE] [QUOTE=Texas Dissident]So what if she was? Are we now in the business of starving to death, or rather murdering, those among us who are incapable of living a normal life? Quadraplegics? Retarded people? Autistics? Infants abused by their parents and no longer wanted? You see once you open that door then there's really no moral argument to ever stop killing those deemed 'inconvenient'.
That you believe we are justified in killing a person who we judge as 'incapable of leading a normal life' or requires assistance to eat.
[/QUOTE]I know this is now going to shoot my "moral depravity" through the roof, in your eyes, but yes.(I am excluding quadrapalegics and infants not wanted by their parents) The severely mentally disabled are better off.
[QUOTE]Why do we feed and care for our children and elderly? Mainly I would say, because of love.[/QUOTE]If you believe in God or some form of higher being. Isn't it the ultimate act of "love" to allow people who are only going to know pain on earth to allow them the dignity to not have to experience this pain?
2005-03-19 01:51 | User Profile
One other thought. As I said, I'm opposed to letting Schiavo die. But if they absolutely must, then why does it have to be by starvation? That's really horrible. This woman isn't unconscious, and letting her starve will probably cause her to suffer for something like two weeks before she finally dies (unless they pull her hydration tube as well, which is much faster but probably even more inhumane). If they HAVE to kill her, they could at least use an OD of morphine or something. But if I had my way, they'd just keep right on feeding her.
2005-03-19 01:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]You left off half the equation, Angler. In fact, the infinitely more important half. Yes, we are all sinners who justly deserve God's eternal punishment, but the good news is that in spite of that, God loved each and every one of us enough to send his son Jesus Christ into the world to suffer and die on the Cross to pay the eternal price for our sins. It is because of God's grace and Christ's work on the Cross that we have value and worth as human beings originally made in the image of God himself. Sorry, I don't buy it. I don't believe a perfect God would create imperfection and then punish (or threaten to punish) His imperfect creation for being imperfect. It makes no sense. But I respect your opinion.
You cannot make the argument for human compassion towards others without a personal God whose love for us gives each of us our true worth and the example of how we should treat our fellow human beings.[/QUOTE]But I already have. I feel compassion towards others simply because it's in my nature to do so. And I think it's in my nature for the same reason it's instinctive in many lower animals -- it aids cooperation and, hence, survival. Regardless of the reason those compassionate instincts are there, I choose to recognize them and follow them.
2005-03-19 02:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]If you believe in God or some form of higher being. Isn't it the ultimate act of "love" to allow people who are only going to know pain on earth to allow them the dignity to not have to experience this pain?[/QUOTE] The problem with that is that Schiavo might be having a fulfilling life after all. No one really knows -- she might be nearly brain-dead, but maybe not. The meaning of her life might be nothing more than the simple pleasure of enjoying her parents' company during visits, but that might be worthwhile enough for her and her parents. If her wishes aren't known, then I really think it's better to err on the side of caution and keep her alive, especially since there's no evidence that she's in any sort of severe, chronic pain (such things can probably be detected via brain imaging).
2005-03-19 04:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]As I said, I'm opposed to letting Schiavo die. But if they absolutely must, then why does it have to be by starvation? That's really horrible.[/QUOTE]I don't think my stepfather suffered much. He never complained. He was on morphine, but not enough to knock him out or make him incoherent. He just gradually drifted away.
I don't say this justifies what's being done. After all, my stepfather was already dying, and he was the one who made the request.
2005-03-19 04:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]If they HAVE to kill her, they could at least use an OD of morphine or something.[/QUOTE]No, that's open acceptance of euthanasia. The grotesquerie of this situation is something like partial-birth abortion. The flimsiest of legal fig-leaves distiguishes it from infanticide, but at least the fig-leaf is still there, and infanticide has not yet been legitimized.
2005-03-19 05:59 | User Profile
As disturbed as I am about the assisted suicide movement, I will give it credit for one thing. It shook the arrogance of the medical establishment and the drug-warriors. They now take pain management seriously.
2005-03-19 06:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]What's wrong with you people? I can't believe the despicable and morally repugnant views being expressed here. This woman is alive and only needs the help of a feeding tube to stay that way. Essentially this is no different situation than an infant or 18 month old, for that matter. Are we to murder an infant when and if their mother or father decides they are an inconvenience to them? C'mon people, to think otherwise is barbaric and just flat-out sick and twisted. Now if she was comatose and required a breathing machine, I think a valid case could be made to end life support. But this is certainly not the case here. .[/QUOTE]
Very well put.
2005-03-19 07:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Stanley]This is a very difficult area. When Karen Ann Quinland had her respirator removed, and still continued to live, food and water became redefined as medical treatment that could also be withheld. The next logical step is euthanasia and assisted suicide.
And yet, when my stepfather had terminal cancer and could no longer swallow food or water, he refused a tube. It took him a week to die. I see nothing wrong in his decision, though some might argue that it was an act of suicide.[/QUOTE]I agree its a difficult area. Letting someone die cause of lack of water seems to me a little cruel, but if people do it to themseves, as is common (as happened in my family too) it can't be too unnatural.
I agree also our standards for life are sliding downhill. Superficially Schiavo seems to be surprisingly active and responsive for a supposedly "brain dead" person. Yet anyone who works in the medical profession will tell you, at least privately, that people with infinitely better prognosises are now being disposed of in this way, as common practice.
2005-03-19 07:33 | User Profile
QUOTE=OkiereddustI agree also our standards for life are sliding downhill. Superficially Schiavo seems to be surprisingly active and responsive for a supposedly "brain dead" person. Yet anyone who works in the medical profession will tell you, at least privately, that people with infinitely better prognosises are now being disposed of in this way, as common practice.[/QUOTE] What are you talking about, exactly?
2005-03-19 10:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]A settlement of 1.1 million dollars awarded should be more than enough to pay for Terri's care for the rest of her life. It's not like any of your money or my money should be needed.
What about the old folks who can no longer take care of themselves?
What about Christopher Reeve. After his accident, he was a pretty worthless drain on resources.[/QUOTE] 1.1 million dollars? [B]You have got to be kidding![/B]I am not sure what the exact figures are, but with a comotose person in the hospital my fairly rough understanding is this is the amount required for less than [B]one year's[/B] worth of care.
The news has been reluctant to bring up this aspect of it it seems, but that's what is really involved here. I think it for instance explains part of the diagnosis of her brain condition. Insurance companies do not like to keep people like this alive indefinitely, and physicians work for insurance companies basically now.
2005-03-19 10:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]What are you talking about, exactly?[/QUOTE]I guess most people who aren't closely acquiainted with the medical profession aren't aware of this, but these sorts of decisions are made all the time. Schiavo is an exceptional case, due to her high media profile. Your average Joe Blow, they aren't prepared to spend nearly that much money on you, and if you're somewhere out of range of the camera's, they'll figure out someway to make sure you don't overstay the insurance companies cost allowances.
That's why its so important, if you're in the hospital, to have people checking on you. Don't assume the doctors have your best interests at heart, and certainly not the administrators or insurance adusters.
2005-03-19 12:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]So you honestly believe there is a chance she could have come out of this state and resume some sense of a normal life? And that she would not be, at least, severely mentally handicapped? Do you see the slippery slope here? Before you were saying it was okay to kill her because she would never come out of this state, and now you have progressed to saying that even if she does, unless she will be able to resume a 'normal life' in which she is not 'severely mentally handicapped,' then we should kill her anyway.
[quote=starr]Yes, if an adult has to be fed through a feeding tube and most likely will for their rest of their lives that is artificial means, IMO.[/QUOTE]The fact remains that all she is receiving is food and water. No machine is breathing for her. No machine is pumping her blood or filtering her urine. She cannot swallow food and water, and thus needs to ingest them in an alternate way, period. Are you really comfortable with starving a conscious person to death because her life isn't as full or normal as you think it should be?
2005-03-19 12:46 | User Profile
QUOTE=OkiereddustI guess most people who aren't closely acquiainted with the medical profession aren't aware of this, but these sorts of decisions are made all the time. Schiavo is an exceptional case, due to her high media profile. Your average Joe Blow, they aren't prepared to spend nearly that much money on you, and if you're somewhere out of range of the camera's, they'll figure out someway to make sure you don't overstay the insurance companies cost allowances.
That's why its so important, if you're in the hospital, to have people checking on you. Don't assume the doctors have your best interests at heart, and certainly not the administrators or insurance adusters.[/QUOTE]
I think Okie hits it on the head (and Hugh Lincoln was pushing at the same point above). What this really boils down to is cost benefit analysis. It is not just "food and water" which Schiavo is receiving. It is millions upon millions of dollars in health care. Nurses to roll her over and bathe her. A bed space in a hospital, clean sheets, and bedpan cleaners. Drugs for bedsores. And on and on. Multiple full time man years are being spent on her. That is very expensive.
The problem is that most people do not like thinking in cost-benefit terms. They do not want to say "a life is worth X million dollars". But I think even TD and Walter would agree with me at some point during one of the following statements:
etc.
At some point - maybe when we hit the billions - most people will agree that a limit has been reached. Better that one person should die than our country be bankrupted, in the limit. Allocating money to hopeless causes has a real cost: other people die. Money spent on hopeless cases means cheap tetanus shots can't be bought for poor kids (for example). There is always a tradeoff at the margins.
Once we accept that Schiavo is VERY expensive to care for, we can have a more reasonable discussion. This is not just $10 of gruel per week.
2005-03-19 12:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=askel5] Perhaps ... if you weren't some slackjawed white supremacist...[/QUOTE]
You can take that crap back to "Free"Republic. Most of the posters here are honest White separatists, as opposed to the WSiD's (White Separatists in Denial), who would soil themselves in fear at the very thought of moving into a ghetto or barrio. That latter group consists of the vast majority of White people, BTW.
2005-03-19 18:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE][QUOTE=Quantrill]Do you see the slippery slope here? Before you were saying it was okay to kill her because she would never come out of this state, and now you have progressed to saying that even if she does, unless she will be able to resume a 'normal life' in which she is not 'severely mentally handicapped,' then we should kill her anyway.[/QUOTE] I have already said that anyone who is severely mentally handicapped is better off dead, I realize that may sound harsh to people who disagree, but it is how I feel.
[QUOTE] Are you really comfortable with starving a conscious person to death because her life isn't as full or normal as you think it should be? [/QUOTE] No, I do not agree with this method. If I was her mother, I would have ended her life quickly and painlessly with something such as an overdose of morphine a long time ago. If I was in a similar position, I would hope that someone would do the same for me.
2005-03-19 20:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]I just saw a press conference from the husband's attorney in which he said that the woman was still healthy she had expressed her wishes not to be kept alive in this way.[/QUOTE]
This never figured in his sworn testimony or that of the experts who helped him collect over a million in damages for her care on the basis she was not only a candidate for rehab but could be expected to live another 41 years.
2005-03-19 20:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]Their presence at such places is always deeply disturbing to me.:eek:[/QUOTE]
At what sort of places does their presence not deeply disturbing to you? Just curious.
2005-03-19 20:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Recluse]You can take that crap back to "Free"Republic. Most of the posters here are honest White separatists, as opposed to the WSiD's (White Separatists in Denial), who would soil themselves in fear at the very thought of moving into a ghetto or barrio. That latter group consists of the vast majority of White people, BTW.[/QUOTE]
It's "separatist", not "supremacist"? Thanks for the tip.
"Honest" they may be but they're still woefully ignorant if they don't hail the Bush Dynasty and other heroes such as Kissinger, Scowcroft and Rumsfeld, for laying the groundwork for the breeding of superior genetic quality, ensuring of hereditary quality and avoidance of "down breeding" through birth control, abortion and offing of the unfit.
Such bonehead ignorance does not bode well for assertions of "supremacy."
2005-03-19 21:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=askel5]At what sort of places does their presence not deeply disturbing to you? Just curious.[/QUOTE] Locked away in an institution.:tongue:
2005-03-19 23:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]You cannot make the argument for human compassion towards others without a personal God whose love for us gives each of us our true worth and the example of how we should treat our fellow human beings.[/QUOTE]
Oh, come on! Sure you can. Its simple, ordinary, common (instinctual?) deceny; it doesn't require a complex theological framework, with all due respect.
2005-03-19 23:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]The severely mentally disabled are better off.
Better off dead? Perhaps they are. I don't find it a particularly unlikely premise. However, where killing innocent members of my extended family (race) is concerned, I prefer to err on the side of caution.
2005-03-19 23:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]One other thought. As I said, I'm opposed to letting Schiavo die. But if they absolutely must, then why does it have to be by starvation? That's really horrible. This woman isn't unconscious, and letting her starve will probably cause her to suffer for something like two weeks before she finally dies (unless they pull her hydration tube as well, which is much faster but probably even more inhumane). If they HAVE to kill her, they could at least use an OD of morphine or something. But if I had my way, they'd just keep right on feeding her.[/QUOTE]
Indeed. If they're going to flippin' well murder her, then it behooves them to at least have the courage of their diabolical convictions and thus do it humanely, with an overdose of opiates or barbituates. Just letting her die of thirst, while she's conscious, is positively insane. Its disgusting!
2005-03-19 23:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Stanley]I don't think my stepfather suffered much. He never complained. He was on morphine, but not enough to knock him out or make him incoherent. He just gradually drifted away.[/QUOTE]
Being on morphine no doubt helped a great deal in that respect. Unless I am mistaken, it does not appear that such a remedy for her imminent and intense discomfort is going to be made available for Ms. Schiavo.
2005-03-20 06:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]A settlement of 1.1 million dollars awarded should be more than enough to pay for Terri's care for the rest of her life. It's not like any of your money or my money should be needed.
What about the old folks who can no longer take care of themselves?
What about Christopher Reeve. After his accident, he was a pretty worthless drain on resources.[/QUOTE]
I agree...
Also I would like to add that Terri's parents have said on multiple occasions that THEY would be willing to FEED Terri in their OWN HOME, and out of their OWN POCKET. This is NOT a Government matter and her "husband" is a pig! :angry:
As for Reeve.... He was dead the second he hit the ground.
2005-03-20 06:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=MacDonald CSA]I agree...
Also I would like to add that Terri's parents have said on multiple occasions that THEY would be willing to FEED Terri in their OWN HOME, and out of their OWN POCKET. This is NOT a Government matter and her "husband" is a pig! :angry:
As for Reeve.... He was dead the second he hit the ground.[/QUOTE] So Christopher Reeve, who's mind was perfectly normal after the accident, was "dead the second he hit the ground" But Terry, who is practically brain dead should be kept alive?:confused: Am I missing something here?
2005-03-20 07:12 | User Profile
Always take care of your own.
It is only money - after all. And there is plenty of it.
However, quality of life is important for every living being. But the decision to end life must remain with the sentient patient. If otherwise, it falls upon the next-of-kin: of educated and considered mind. That who has an emotional attachment.
The decision cannot, and must not, be determined by doctor or some other impersonal official.
Mentzer
2005-03-20 07:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]So Christopher Reeve, who's mind was perfectly normal after the accident, was "dead the second he hit the ground" But Terry, who is practically brain dead should be kept alive?:confused: Am I missing something here?[/QUOTE]
It was a C2-C3 break... No wiring to the LUNGS.
Without machines, he was DEAD!
As for Terri.... WHY are you still listening to the Jewish owned press regarding this CATHOLIC (Jewspeak="Goy") woman?
Here is the REAL story...
[url]http://www.terrisfight.org/[/url]
[img]http://www.terrisfight.org/images/new-top-title-bar.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.rense.com/1.imagesG/disabled.jpg[/img]
2005-03-20 08:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]Oh, come on! Sure you can. Its simple, ordinary, common (instinctual?) deceny; it doesn't require a complex theological framework, with all due respect.[/QUOTE]
No need for a complex theological framework, but it does require an objective moral standard, at the very least. Anything short of that is pure sophistry. Common decency is most certainly not instinctual.
2005-03-20 08:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=MacDonald CSA]Also I would like to add that Terri's parents have said on multiple occasions that THEY would be willing to FEED Terri in their OWN HOME, and out of their OWN POCKET. This is NOT a Government matter and her "husband" is a pig! :angry: [/QUOTE]
You can say that again. In fact, I'm highly suspicious of her husband's motives. Why is it SO unacceptable to him to simply let this woman live? It's obvious that he doesn't care about her anymore -- he's already started a new family and couldn't even be bothered to be present when the feeding tube was removed. That crap about "this is what Terry wanted" doesn't fly. Let's see some documentation of her wishes.
The "accident" that Terry Schiavo suffered was never really explained, was it? Maybe she knows something that her "husband" doesn't want the rest of the world to know? It sounds farfetched, but I can't help wondering.
2005-03-20 08:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=MacDonald CSA]It was a C2-C3 break... No wiring to the LUNGS.
Without machines, he was DEAD!
As for Terri.... WHY are you still listening to the Jewish owned press regarding this CATHOLIC (Jewspeak="Goy") woman?
Here is the REAL story...
[url="http://www.terrisfight.org/"]http://www.terrisfight.org/[/url]
[img]http://www.terrisfight.org/images/new-top-title-bar.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.rense.com/1.imagesG/disabled.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]while reeve was probably better off dead also, the fact still remained that he had a fully functioning and completely normal brain. No matter how physically handicapped he was he was still capable of many things. What is terry capable of? Her parents, understandably just do not want to let her go, even though she basically died a long time ago. Again, I have to ask, as I have asked others would you want to live in this condition?
what is the real story that you posted the link to? I did not see anything in it that would indicate that she is not profoundly retarded, and therefore better off dead.
2005-03-20 08:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]No need for a complex theological framework, but it does require an objective moral standard, at the very least. Anything short of that is pure sophistry. It can be argued that what we call "moral instincts" DO exist in an objective, naturalistic sense -- i.e., they are hardwired into our brains. They are a more complex version of the instincts we observe in lower animals. If some kind of animal that reproduces relatively slowly -- elephants, say -- didn't instinctively care for their young, then elephants would die out very rapidly. Watch also how apes interact -- grooming each other and engaging in other non-selfish interactions. Similarly, an ancient tribe of humans would never have been able to successfully compete or fight against neighboring tribes without cooperation and genuine concern for one's fellow tribesmen. Cooperation and non-selfishness (up to a limit, of course) benefit survival of individuals and groups in social settings. And human beings are highly social animals.
Common decency is most certainly not instinctual.[/QUOTE]Sure it is. Are you saying that if you didn't believe in God you wouldn't still be decent to other people? How would you act differently?
Speaking from experience as someone who deconverted from Christianity, I treat people the same way now as I did when I was a believer. Actually, I'm probably more compassionate now, since I don't believe that those who suffer in the present life have something better to look forward to after they die.
2005-03-20 10:48 | User Profile
Death Process from Starvation:
[url]http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?sid=449541&nid=104[/url]
2005-03-20 11:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]_ Days Five to 10: People who are alert have a marked decrease in their alertness. Respiration becomes irregular with periods of very fast and then very slow breathing. Some patients will become restless, while others will be less active. For patients in a persistent vegetative state, there may be no discernible change in their movements.[QUOTE]
News we can use given the fact that removal of the feeding tube is not something reserved for the "brain dead" or "vegetables" but could happen to anyone with the foresight to put in writing their wish to be starved to death should they become in any way inconvenient to another.
2005-03-20 15:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]You can say that again. In fact, I'm highly suspicious of her husband's motives. Why is it SO unacceptable to him to simply let this woman live? It's obvious that he doesn't care about her anymore -- he's already started a new family and couldn't even be bothered to be present when the feeding tube was removed. That crap about "this is what Terry wanted" doesn't fly. Let's see some documentation of her wishes.
The "accident" that Terry Schiavo suffered was never really explained, was it? Maybe she knows something that her "husband" doesn't want the rest of the world to know? It sounds farfetched, but I can't help wondering.[/QUOTE]
I believe he stands to collect a hundred-grand in life insurance, which is why he hasn't divorced her.
How was this woman injured?
2005-03-20 18:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]You can say that again. In fact, I'm highly suspicious of her husband's motives. Why is it SO unacceptable to him to simply let this woman live? It's obvious that he doesn't care about her anymore -- he's already started a new family and couldn't even be bothered to be present when the feeding tube was removed. That crap about "this is what Terry wanted" doesn't fly. Let's see some documentation of her wishes.
The "accident" that Terry Schiavo suffered was never really explained, was it? Maybe she knows something that her "husband" doesn't want the rest of the world to know? It sounds farfetched, but I can't help wondering.[/QUOTE]
It would be interesting if this whole thing turned out to be a staged event.
1) Handicapped woman "sentenced" to death.
2) Bushy rides in on white horse to "save" her.
[url=http://www.jeb.org/]Florida[/url].... Hmmmm.
2005-03-22 18:28 | User Profile
I must admit to a certain fatigue on this case, having it hammered in day after day after day. :bash:
I personally would not want to be around like that for 14-plus years, draining on the taxpayer and soiling myself, but then again, I'm not her, and I find the fact that they're starving her to death loathsome, especially since the parents have made clear they're willing to be responsible for her.
I do, however, wish that the media would spend 1/1000th the time they've spent on this poor woman following what's happened to some of our troops wounded in Iraq who are now in a similar situation to the unfortunate Mrs. Schiavo, not that I'm going to be holding my breath or anything.
2005-03-22 19:15 | User Profile
I believe that the most humane thing to do for a human being who is brain dead or effectively brain dead is to let them die. Nothing can be more degrading to the human condition than being kept alive as a comatose slab of flesh sustained by tubes and wires for years.
The analogy opponents of "euthanasia" make with abortion breaks down because a fetus will eventually become a sentient human being. An adult whose brain is destroyed never will be sentient. Who benefits from keeping such a person alive? Not the person himself, who almost surely would chose death over being in such a state, and not those around what's left of him.
The worst aspect of this is that a person can't even chose death for himself. A sentient quadriplegic who wishes to be taken off a respirator and die has to fight the courts tooth and nail and will probably lose. Nor (as far as I know) can one make provisions not to be put on tubes and wires in the event of severe brain damage (the best you can do is a "do not recessitate" request, which isn't the same thing).
2005-03-22 19:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]The analogy opponents of "euthanasia" make with abortion breaks down because a fetus will eventually become a sentient human being. An adult whose brain is destroyed never will be sentient. Who benefits from keeping such a person alive?[/QUOTE]
So then death or life is to depend on whether or not someone benefits from that life?
2005-03-22 20:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]So then death or life is to depend on whether or not someone benefits from that life?[/QUOTE]Like of death should depend at least somewhat on the quality of life. This woman has no quality of life and she never will again.
It is funny how the pro-life people(which I am on the abortion issue)lump stuff like this together, when there is such a huge difference. a child in the womb is growing and is going to be a completely viable human being while this woman is, and will always be, a vegetable dependent on someone else for her most basic care. Her parents say they want to take care of her, but what happens when they die?
2005-03-23 02:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=MacDonald CSA]It would be interesting if this whole thing turned out to be a staged event.
1) Handicapped woman "sentenced" to death.
2) Bushy rides in on white horse to "save" her.
[url=http://www.jeb.org/]Florida[/url].... Hmmmm.[/QUOTE]
Interesting perhaps, but it doesn't appear to be the case. I've been following this story for several years, perhaps before Bush even took office in 2001; I don't specifically recall when I first heard of this story, but it was definitely a few years ago.
2005-03-23 02:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]I believe that the most humane thing to do for a human being who is brain dead or effectively brain dead is to let them die. Nothing can be more degrading to the human condition than being kept alive as a comatose slab of flesh sustained by tubes and wires for years.
The analogy opponents of "euthanasia" make with abortion breaks down because a fetus will eventually become a sentient human being. An adult whose brain is destroyed never will be sentient. Who benefits from keeping such a person alive? Not the person himself, who almost surely would chose death over being in such a state, and not those around what's left of him.
That all sounds very reasonable, and mirrors what I would have believed for most of my life, however, it now seems to me that while clearly Ms. Schiavo is unlikely to benefit in any meaningful way from being fed & hydrated via tube, society benefits from maintaining the standard that ones does not deny food & water to the sick (without their explicit permission, anyway). I suspect Ms. Schiavo is very much beyond caring one way or another; we would not want to live like that, but once you are like that, I doubt it bothers you very much.
2005-03-23 07:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]That all sounds very reasonable, and mirrors what I would have believed for most of my life, however, it now seems to me that while clearly Ms. Schiavo is unlikely to benefit in any meaningful way from being fed & hydrated via tube, society benefits from maintaining the standard that ones does not deny food & water to the sick (without their explicit permission, anyway).[/QUOTE]
:clap: Thank you, Kevin. I would think that all of the learned gentlemen on this site who so often eloquently make the argument for objective truths and standards across a myriad of issues would see clearly to the heart of this debate, and that is the maintenance of the objective standard for life. One is either alive or dead, there is no middle ground. As soon as we introduce subjective arguments like the 'quality' or 'benefit' of a particular life into the question of whether or not someone should live or die then truly we have opened up Pandora's box and are then on the fast road to perdition and untold human barbarism. There can be no equivocation on this most critical issue of life and the standard must simply be maintained. Life begins upon conception and ends upon a natural death. In between those two points it is our legal and medical duty to do all we can to preserve and protect this most fundamental human right to life. I would also make the argument that this view of the precious and special gift of an individual life is at bottom the flower of Western Christendom itself. The right to life is a true 'either/or', leaving no room for Hegelian middle of the road synthesizing. As such, we who deem to advance and argue on behalf of Western civilization should think very carefully about the consequences of permitting even the most innocuous of subjectivity in our reasonings on these kinds of fundamental issues.
2005-03-23 07:37 | User Profile
LOL. that was a great argument, Kevin, so good in fact, that even though I disagree I don't have a sufficient counter.
2005-03-23 11:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=MacDonald CSA]It would be interesting if this whole thing turned out to be a staged event.
1) Handicapped woman "sentenced" to death.
2) Bushy rides in on white horse to "save" her.[QUOTE]
Better and better… another Bush conspiracy. LOL! :osama:
2005-03-23 16:33 | User Profile
You nailed it, Kevin.
2005-03-24 03:17 | User Profile
Here's what I have problems with.
What's wrong with letting her parents take care of her? They're begging to be allowed to.
Terri Schiavo never signed a Living Will. Why do we accept without question and investigation, her husband speaking for her.
What would be wrong with taking another look at Terri Schiavo's condition? Some questions are now being raised about the accurate diagnosis of her condition. It may all be a delay tactic, but this is a human life. Would it kill anyone or upset the natural order of things to give this one more investigative looksee.
Several nurses have come forward and said they signed affadavits to the fact that Terri Schiavo was not in a vegetative state when they first ministered to her but that her husband's relentless denial of therapy was what finally put her there. If this allegation is not investigated, shame on us.
I say give her a chance. You can always kill her, but you have just once chance to save her and that's now. And for those of you who are fed up with this news story, nobody is forcing you to read or listen.
2005-03-24 07:20 | User Profile
Most of the pro-lifers here would say that her death will lead to a "slippery slope" of killing retarded persons, diabetics, etc. This is an emotionally charged argument, of course, but that's a pretty popular opinion.
Trouble always occurs when the government gets involved in ridiculous cases like this. The mealy-mouthed politicians (e.g., JEB BUSH wants to make sure this woman walks/talks/breathes instantly! -sarcasm added) are just as guilty at playing God as the person removing her feeding tube. I consider myself a pro-lifer, but I'd rather let the medical community decide her fate, not a bunch of moralizing buffoons. Both the parents and the woman's husband are on bad terms, so that will never happen.
Also, if she does die (pretty likely) than who will be charged with her murder (if you accept that premise)?
2005-03-24 07:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Tornado]I consider myself a pro-lifer, but I'd rather let the medical community decide her fate, not a bunch of moralizing buffoons.[/QUOTE]
Ah yes, the vaunted medical community. The same ones in cases too numerous to mention, perform an amniocentesis on an expectant mother, find the baby tests positive for some kind of birth disorder or retardation, advise the mother to abort the child, the mother does not and goes on to have a perfectly healthy baby. No thanks. If you've ever had a child with some kind of serious postnatal health problem, one thing you'll probably learn is how much doctors don't know. Further, most doctors won't admit it, but in truth most of them work for and look after the interests of the insurance companies and not the patient.
2005-03-24 08:12 | User Profile
[I]As soon as we introduce subjective arguments like the 'quality' or 'benefit' of a particular life into the question of whether or not someone should live or die then truly we have opened up Pandora's box and are then on the fast road to perdition and untold human barbarism. [/I]
Tragically, decisions involving witholding of feeding or of hydration (IVs) occur constantly every day in American and foreign hospitals. Witholding never occurs, at least in my experience, without the unanimous consent of the family. A living will is usually unnecessary. The docs and nurses are usually trying to move the family in some direction of course and are in an overwhelming position of trust, so usually what they want, happens. I was last involved personally in such actions long ago when an intern, and a Nietzschean pagan. It is a terrible allure of being a physician " in control" you must understand. Since then, I've come to Jesus, Mary, Joseph and the Church, and would behave much differently. But I'm not in primary care - thank God - so it never comes up for me. Probably hundreds of such witholding decisions take place every day across the US, in cases of massive stroke and endstage cancer with metastases. For those interested, [url]http://codeblueblog.blogs.com/codeblueblog/2005/03/csi_medblogs_co.html[/url] shows a single slice of Terri Schiavo's 1996 CT scan. It shows hydrocephalus probably [I]ex vacuo[/I] meaning the brain tissue around the black ventricles has shrunk, allowing dilatation of the ventricles outwards. There is a lot of black CT attenuation widely in the areas underneath the small temporal lobes and gyri, and confluent low attenuation in all of the occipital lobes bilaterally. That represents edema, and is what the brain looks like after massive, bilateral ischemia or lack of oxygenation. It is an old CT scan, and I should imagine that her scan would look worse now, probably with lots of porencephaly (fluid-filled spaces instead of edematous but still intact brain sulci, gyri, and white matter). No matter what shape her brain is in, as I understand it the Church still regards her as an immortal soul belonging only to God, and as a legal person deserving the protection of the law, just as the fetus is a person. Maybe Walter and Butch could elaborate more on this. It's a worthy dogma to hold on to.
....[I]to sail beyond the sunset, and the baths of all the Western stars, 'til I die[/I]....
2005-03-24 08:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sather_Gate]Since then, I've come to Jesus, Mary, Joseph and the Church, and would behave much differently. But I'm not in primary care - thank God - so it never comes up for me. Probably hundreds of such witholding decisions take place every day across the US, in cases of massive stroke and endstage cancer with metastases. For those interested, [url]http://codeblueblog.blogs.com/codeblueblog/2005/03/csi_medblogs_co.html[/url] shows a single slice of Terri Schiavo's 1996 CT scan. It shows hydrocephalus probably [I]ex vacuo[/I] meaning the brain tissue around the black ventricles has shrunk, allowing dilatation of the ventricles outwards. There is a lot of black CT attenuation widely in the areas underneath the small temporal lobes and gyri, and confluent low attenuation in all of the occipital lobes bilaterally. That represents edema, and is what the brain looks like after massive, bilateral ischemia or lack of oxygenation. It is an old CT scan, and I should imagine that her scan would look worse now, probably with lots of porencephaly (fluid-filled spaces instead of edematous but still intact brain sulci, gyri, and white matter). No thanks, but thanks for the offer. I'm sure its not a pretty site. As death isn't. Like you. I'm glad I don't have to normally look at it. We delegate the business to others, hoping that they will trustworthy. When they've proved they aren't, like they have in this case, -family - medical profession - courts - media - we are forced to step in and participate, and look on the spector of a woman dying, who once had great life, and still has an amazingly lot left in her IMO, considering what she's gone through, dying.
Someday it will be us in that position. Seeing what's transpired recenty, that's not a pleasant thought. Would that I had the faith to proclaim, like Christ "Forgive them, for they know not what they do".
Right now, another phrase I think is more applicable
[CENTER]-------------------------------------------[/CENTER]
[SIZE=4][CENTER]Terry Schiavo Born Dec 3, 1963. Died March, 2005
[B][COLOR=DarkRed]Vengence is mine, I will repay, Sayeth the Lord[/COLOR] [/B] [/CENTER] [/SIZE] [CENTER]-------------------------------------------[/CENTER]
....[I]to sail beyond the sunset, and the baths of all the Western stars, 'til I die[/I]....[/QUOTE]You've done quite well yourself. Thank you.
2005-03-24 19:54 | User Profile
Terri Schiavo's brother, Bobby Schindler was interviewed on Fox Cable this morning. Sweeping aside the medical and religious/moral aspects of this case, he made some very startling accusations. According to him, Michael Schiavo won a malpractice suite against the doctor who misdiagnosed and treated Terri that amounted to a million dollars, 700,000 of which was to be put in a trust for therapy. Obviously, someone at that point thought there was a need for therapy and that she could benefit from it. During the malpractice trial Michael Schiavo never once mentioned Terri's wishes to not be kept alive by extraordinary measures, nor did he mention a Living Will because to do so would have effected the outcome of the portion of money allocated to therapy. Again, according the her brother, it was after the money was deposited that he began to talk-up the whole idea of letting her die because it conformed to her wishes.
If this is true, on that alone, this whole case should be re-opened.
2005-03-24 20:10 | User Profile
To me a person is dead only if the person is brain dead and don't think that she is.
2005-03-24 20:24 | User Profile
De facto Euthanasia is already going on in the United States behind closed doors and tight lipped doctors & nurses. Ever hear of morphine?
Schiavo's story and court ruling just happened to leak through at the exact time that Bush & Co. needed a really good distraction from the ongoing debacles plaguing the country.
Whether she lives or dies is still, ultimately, God's Will.
2005-03-24 22:12 | User Profile
[quote=xmetalhead]Schiavo's story and court ruling just happened to leak through at the exact time that Bush & Co. needed a really good distraction from the ongoing debacles plaguing the country.
Too true. Bush giving away the store to Vincente? Trade deficit & gas prices at records highs? Troops mutilated in Mesopotamia? Illegal, diseased Mexicans pouring into the country? Not important. What is important is what kind of cream cheese Michael Schiavo's lawyer had on his bagel this morning.
I have an ugly feeling that FOX is soon to make a reality show based on this epsiode.
"Sorry contestant number 1! The judges think your quality of life is too low to continue!"
2005-03-24 22:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]To me a person is dead only if the person is brain dead and don't think that she is.[/QUOTE] I think she is pretty close.
2005-03-25 15:05 | User Profile
Question:
Removing the feeding tube is bad enough...but where is it written that her parents are forbidden to be at her side to comfort her as she goes through the throes of death. This is friggin barbaric. This has crossed the line big time.
I wasn't interested in this story until about a week ago when the courts began to tighten the screws on the Schindlers, but I've now learned a helluva lot more about this case than before and what I've learned is that the public isn't be treated to a fair and balanced account of what went down years ago and this Michael Schiavo character. To say he was a kind and loving husband doesn't cut it for me. They said the same thing about Scott Peterson.
If I were her parents I would risk life and limb to get into that hospice to get to my daughter's side. They'd need 20 men to stop me. To hell with patience and politeness. I'd organize civil disobedience along the lines of the SDS of the '60's. Let them just try and stop me. That a mass demonstration isn't being undertaken by anyone but evangelical Christians says a lot about who we are today. I'd have expected all religious denominations to lend support.
And here's a final question. Where are the Jews? This comes very close to what they experienced during WWII at the hands of govt. sponsored euthanasia, so why the hell aren't they manning the barricades with the Christians?
2005-03-25 15:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]I think she is pretty close.[/QUOTE]
[B]Not according to a doctor who was interviewed by BillyO last night. As a matter of fact, he admitted that doctors are confused. BTW, his credentials were impeccable so he wasn't some fringe doc or quack.[/B]
2005-03-29 06:07 | User Profile
QUOTE=Okiereddust1.1 million dollars? [B]You have got to be kidding![/B]I am not sure what the exact figures are, but with a comotose person in the hospital my fairly rough understanding is this is the amount required for less than [B]one year's[/B] worth of care.
The news has been reluctant to bring up this aspect of it it seems, but that's what is really involved here. I think it for instance explains part of the diagnosis of her brain condition. Insurance companies do not like to keep people like this alive indefinitely, and physicians work for insurance companies basically now.[/QUOTE]For the record, I'd like to correct this mistake. After checking on the net, I found out the net estimated cost to keep her alive is actually only $80,000 per year.
It surprises me that its that low, but I guess I wasn't checking on her terms of condition really. I guess she is being kept in a hospice, not a hospital. Obviously under a somewhat lower - actually probably much lower - level of care. In fact I would guess from the cost that the condition isn't a whole lot different than just a regular person in a nursing home. Nurses fill (or used to fill) her feeding and water tube, change her bedpan, turn her over, and change hre clother regularly, and that's about it.
I'd say obviously it means I'd say also she's in somewhat passable physical condition, i.e. they weren't taking any other measures to keep her alive, just a special feeding tube.
Not that this seems to be a real issue in any of the court testimony I've heard anyway.
2005-03-29 06:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=DakotaBlue]And here's a final question. Where are the Jews? This comes very close to what they experienced during WWII at the hands of govt. sponsored euthanasia, so why the hell aren't they manning the barricades with the Christians?[/QUOTE]:lol:
I can just hear some of them repeating Begin's famous quote:caiphas:
[QUOTE][I]Goy[/I] killing [I]goy[/I], and [B]we [/B] have to be responsible?[/QUOTE]
2005-03-29 15:25 | User Profile
[size=-1]*This seems a bit of an overreaction. *
Gabriel Keys (foreground) is arrested by police officers for trespassing in Pinellas Park, Florida, March 23, 2005. The young protester attempted to take a glass of water into the Woodside Hospice for the brain-damaged Terri Schiavo. A federal judge rejected a request from the parents of Schiavo to order her feeding tube reinserted, dealing a blow to attempts by the U.S. Congress and the White House to prolong her life. REUTERS/Carlos Barria [img]http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20050323/i/r4209066064.jpg[/img]
[url="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050323/ids_photos_ts/r4209066064.jpg"]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050323/ids_photos_ts/r4209066064.jpg[/url] [/size]
2005-03-29 15:52 | User Profile
I can just hear some of them repeating Begin's famous quote:caiphas:[/QUOTE]
That's unfair.
Many of the Orthodox Rabbis have come out strongly in support of Terri's right to life and themselves pointed to the similarities between her "good death" and that of the countless unfit offed well in advance of Hitler's ascension to power, even.
2005-03-29 15:54 | User Profile
For example:
Rabbis Plead for Bush to Intervene NewsMax ^ | 3/27/05 | Carl Limbacher
Rabbi Yehuda Levin has issued the following statement on behalf of the Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the United States and Canada:
"We urge President George Bush and Florida Governor Jeb Bush to take immediate, decisive action to save the life of Terri Schindler-Schiavo. We appreciate the pro-life statements of President Bush and Governor Bush. Yet, their efforts have thus far not been successful. We therefore urge the President and Governor Bush to take immediate and decisive action - either jointly or separately - to save the life of Terri Schindler-Schiavo before it is too late.
"When evil becomes 'legally' sanctioned by government, it rises to a higher order of evil - that of Sodom. Legality does not dictate morality. The Almighty dictates morality.
"America is being tested. Will we pass or will we fail?
"Perhaps some feel that everything that could be done has been done. But our holy Torah, the Word of G-d, says otherwise: 'Am I my brother's keeper?' We all know the answer."
2005-03-29 18:25 | User Profile
Anybody have the latest information about the government's huge concern for brain-damaged soldiers back from Iraq?
2005-03-29 19:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=askel5]That's unfair.
Many of the Orthodox Rabbis have come out strongly in support of Terri's right to life and themselves pointed to the similarities between her "good death" and that of the countless unfit offed well in advance of Hitler's ascension to power, even.[/QUOTE]Perhaps. But I haven't really seen these guys on TV. And we all know how the dominant Jewish organization, the ACLU, views this case.
2005-03-29 19:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I have an ugly feeling that FOX is soon to make a reality show based on this episode.
[I]"Sorry contestant number 1! The judges think your quality of life is too low to continue!"[/I][/QUOTE] Sadly, it's hardly inconceivable any more.
2005-03-29 20:25 | User Profile
askel5:
Jews have never been shy about causes they support, to wit, civil rights for blacks and other minorities. On this one however, they're like shrinking violets. Few gentiles know who Rabbi Levin is, much less what he stands for. So...where are Jews who agitate against the war, who speak against Bush, who speak for abortion, who support open borders, who talk about diversity as if it were a religious experience, etc? Where are they?
2005-03-30 01:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I have an ugly feeling that FOX is soon to make a reality show based on this episode.[/QUOTE]
They could call it SURVIVOR: FEEDING TUBE. Or FOOD FACTOR. Or, perhaps, AMERICAN IDLE.
2005-03-30 01:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]They could call it SURVIVOR: FEEDING TUBE. Or FOOD FACTOR. Or, perhaps, AMERICAN IDLE.[/QUOTE]Only a New Yorker :tongue:
You must be chock full of tsunani victim jokes.:clown:
2005-03-30 02:15 | User Profile
Would you [I]actually [/I] be shocked if one of the above shows were to premiere on one of the networks?
Here is an [B]actual [/B] synopsis and episode-recap from an [B]actual [/B] show that's [B]actually [/B] on tv right this moment. How could [I]anything [/I] I (sardonically) make up be ANY WORSE than what Murray Rothstein is [B]actually [/B] spoonfeeding kids??
[QUOTE]STRANGE LOVE
Fans of The Surreal Life on VH1 know that Brigitte Nielsen and Flavor Flav made a splash together in and out of the swimming pool. Now, VH1 is reuniting the ghetto-flash and Euro-trash duo to see if their love is the real deal.
Brigitte, now back at her home in Milan living her clothing-optional lifestyle, can't stop thinking about her rambunctious "Fuffy-Fuffy." Was it just a fling?Of course, Brigitte has known this feeling in the past ... before each of her five marriages. But this time it is different -- something tells her Flav is special.
Flavor Flav, the viking horned headdress wearing, hyperactive, and overly boisterous hype-man of Public Enemy will traverse half way around the world to rekindle the flame with Brigitte and is unleashed on Italy's fashion capital like a tsunami of obnoxious ghetto verbosity and bling.
After a week in the South Bronx, the two lovebirds fly to Vegas for some quality time away from it all. As their whirlwind romance comes to an end will sin city have an affect of their relationship, as it does many other celebrity couples? Will their love for one another prevail or will Brigitte fly back to her European ways and will "operation: ain't got no love" be in effect for Flav? Be there to witness whether or not one of the strangest love stories of all time comes true. [IMG]http://www.vh1.com/sitewide/flipbooks/img/shows/strange_love/1_3243.jpg[/IMG] [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]TONIGHT'S EPISODE: "Bronx Cheer"
After a week together that could leave Italy in a shambles unseen since the fall of Mussolini, Flav convinces Brigitte to come back to New York for his Public Enemy show. While in The Big Apple Flav takes his love to the Bronx to meet his friends, family and lifestyle, including outfitting Brigitte in a new Flav-style wardrobe.
Flav takes Brigitte to the Bronx and she's warmly accepted by Beverly Johnson (his ex) and her family. They get her fitted for gold teeth and an adoring mob forms outside the jewelry/teeth store. They have dinner with Luigi and talk about their relationship, and Brigitte still has concerns. Flav straightens things out with Public Enemy and takes Brigitte to the next PE concert that night, giving her silver teeth as a token of his love. She comes onstage and flashes the crowd a silver smile. The fans go wild.
[IMG]http://www.vh1.com/sitewide/showimages/strange_love/episode7/288x104.jpg[/IMG] [/QUOTE]
2005-03-30 13:50 | User Profile
[IMG]http://www.vh1.com/sitewide/flipbooks/img/shows/strange_love/1_3243.jpg[/IMG]
What a lovely couple. Does Bridgitte Nielson sport a feeding tube? Flava-Flav looks like he needs some nourishment.
2005-03-30 18:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill][size=-1]*This seems a bit of an overreaction. *
Gabriel Keys (foreground) is arrested by police officers for trespassing in Pinellas Park, Florida, March 23, 2005. The young protester attempted to take a glass of water into the Woodside Hospice for the brain-damaged Terri Schiavo. A federal judge rejected a request from the parents of Schiavo to order her feeding tube reinserted, dealing a blow to attempts by the U.S. Congress and the White House to prolong her life. REUTERS/Carlos Barria [img]http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20050323/i/r4209066064.jpg[/img]
[url="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050323/ids_photos_ts/r4209066064.jpg"]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050323/ids_photos_ts/r4209066064.jpg[/url] [/size][/QUOTE]
I'm not surprised the pigs there would stoop so low. In fact, with the mindset of most cops these days, I'd have almost expected them to send a "tactical" team after the kid. Any time an opportunity arises for them to play "macho-hero-tough-guys," they'll take it.
Cops will enforce ANY law, no matter how wrong or how vile. And they will do it with pleasure and no hesitation, just like trained attack dogs. They are scum.
2005-03-30 20:28 | User Profile
I think there is something to the Linderism of cops being, essentially, K9 units after seeing this.
I really don't understand why a ten-year-old needs to be in cuffs. What's he going to do, grab the officer's piece and make a daring escape, gunning down people the whole way? Maybe, so we can't take any chances in the name of "officer safety." Of course, the Negro rapist on his way to trial won't be shackled and will be escorted by a solitary, out-of-shape female, because we know that this demographic is meek as lambs, while the real dangerous group you gotta watch is the Young Christian Good Samaritans, who take in "hate" with their mother's milk and may explode into violence at the drop of a hat.
Cops is people, too, and like you, they put their family first. Part of that is remaining employed, I imagine, and when it comes down to a choice of enforcing a law they might find personally objectionable and getting fired, they're going to choose the enforcement option, every time. It would have to be a very nasty law put into effect before you'd see mass refusal of cops to enforce it. This is especially true as the older generation of cops retires and dies off, to be replaced by the generation succored on MTV and instant gratification, with occasional booster shots of ADL-sponsored visits/training seminars at The Museum (Ministry?) of Tolerance.