Death to Terry Shivo

[mondaynightpoker101]

Who is with me????

[Bill?]

i think they should leave it up to her husband and leave them the fuck alone.

[spectorx51]

i think they should leave it up to her husband and leave them the fuck alone.

If thats what she wanted, I agree>

[Bill?]

If thats what she wanted, I agree>

well you'd think if anybody would know what she wanted, it'd be her husband.

[artimoff]

I know I would want to die if I were like that.

[Shwicaz]

My boyfriend and I were just discussing this. I mean the woman has been in a 'persistent vegetative state' say her doctors since 1990. :shock:

I told Matt that if that were me, pull the plug. He talked about establishing a 'living will' just in case something like this happened.

I just don't understand why Congress/The President is getting involved. :?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. lawmakers said on Friday they plan to issue a congressional subpoena to keep alive Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman at the heart of a heated debate over the right to die.

"Later this morning, we will issue a subpoena, which will require hospice administrators and attending physicians to preserve nutrition and hydration for Terri Schiavo to allow Congress to fully understand the procedures and practices that are currently keeping her alive," three Republican leaders said in a statement.

The lawmakers -- House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas and Government Reform Committee Chairman Tom Davis of Virginia -- support the reform committee's inquiry into the long-term care of incapacitated or non-ambulatory adults.

The subpoena will be joined by a Senate investigation, the lawmakers said.

"This inquiry should give hope to Terri, her parents and friends, and the millions of people throughout the world who are praying for her safety," the statement said. "This fight is not over."

Schiavo has been fed through a tube since she suffered an incapacitating heart attack in 1990. Her husband, Michael Schiavo, contends she would not have wanted to be kept alive in what court-appointed doctors describe as a persistent vegetative state.

Her parents dispute this, saying their daughter responds to them and could improve with rehabilitation.

"Tom DeLay and Dennis Hastert are not members of the Politburo in Stalinist Russia," Michael Schiavo's lawyer, George Felos, told Reuters by telephone. "The state does not own Mrs. Schiavo's body and Congress cannot simply order her to remain alive contrary to her medical treatment wishes and court order."

Felos said Congress has no power to enter an injunction. "The only subpoena Congress can issue is to appear before a congressional body," he said.

The House (of Representatives) on Wednesday and the Senate on Thursday passed legislation aimed at prolonging Schiavo's life, by allowing federal courts to review the case. But the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) declined to step in, sending the matter back to a Florida court.

Late Thursday night, several senators announced they were still holding talks and Congress -- which is supposed to start a two-week recess -- might return on Monday to work on the bill. Even if Schiavo's feeding tube is removed at 1 p.m. Friday, death would not be instantaneous.

In a White House statement, President Bush (news - web sites) said, "In instances like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws, and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life." He was due to visit Florida to talk about Social Security (news - web sites) on Friday.

Schiavo was in her mid-20s when she became ill and had no "living will" or written directive about end-of-life care. She remains at the Woodside Hospice in Pinellas Park, Florida, under police guard. Outside demonstrators held a prayer vigil.

The Florida legislature failed on Thursday to agree on legislation aimed at stopping or delaying removal of the feeding tube, and Republican leaders said prospects were bleak for an agreement on Friday.

[Taxman]

Make a living will, and you can avoid any chance of something like this happening to you.

[TRILL, THE CARBON BASED LIFEFORM]

Who is with me????
Ha. You need to stay up even later tonight to think up something that's inflammatory.

[Shwicaz]

Anyone else find it odd that it took months/years to form a decision on whether to even form a 9/11 committee...

...or how it took months/years to get body armor for our troops in Iraq (and elsewhere--and some still don't have any....)

but when it comes to 'smaller' matters like Steroids in baseball, a federal gay marriage ammendment, and this case here.... everything has to be done right away...?

Congress is supposed to recess for two weeks, but feel this issue is important enough to come back on monday for....

if only they were this dedicated for every issue, not just ones that involve 'right to life' cases, gay cases, or drug cases.

(or is that just the cynic in me talking? )

[bstie1198]

"Fate worse than death" is a phrase that's used too often, but I really think it applies here. Let the poor woman rest in peace.

[Patrick J]

I wouldn't put it like that, but yes, Terry Schiavo should be unplugged and allowed to die.

[uberleslie]

i think half of the tampa bay area (where she 'lives') is ready to pull the plug themselves. this case is always on the news, always in the newspaper, and always being talked about everywhere.

unfortunately, they're not gonna let her die though...even if their bills pass next week after the feeding tube is out, they'll put the it back in. they've done it to her before. then all the people who are standing outside her hospice will say their prayers saved her or some bullshit.

[Fourthman]

They should do what Hal (the Dad) on Malcolm in the Middle did when faced with this dillema a mere 3 weeks ago.

[Balthazar]

I need to make a living will.

[Jonny Z]

They should do what Hal (the Dad) on Malcolm in the Middle did when faced with this dillema a mere 3 weeks ago.

i dont watch the show anymore- what did he do

[Fourthman]

They should do what Hal (the Dad) on Malcolm in the Middle did when faced with this dillema a mere 3 weeks ago.

i dont watch the show anymore- what did he do

Ruining my (and their) joke but the whole episode was him losing his mind from being the one to decide for a neighbor (who had given him the power of attorney in case of this happening).

Going into the last commercial break he makes a decision and coming out of it we get from a conversation between he and Lois that he chose something that no one's ever thought of before (of course, they don't tell us what that is).

[mondaynightpoker101]

Did you know...
Her parents (the ones making the fuss about keeping her alive) have not visited her for over 6 months.

What i do not understand....and perhaps someone could shed some light on this...Their are millions of situations exacty like this case, so why are they making such a big deal about this particular one????

[Raphael J]

Did you know...
Her parents (the ones making the fuss about keeping her alive) have not visited her for over 6 months.

What i do not understand....and perhaps someone could shed some light on this...Their are millions of situations exacty like this case, so why are they making such a big deal about this particular one????

Because lawmakers are getting involved in this one. Jeb Bush, the governor of Florida, has intervened a few times and the House is trying to do so now.

Plus, the family has spread some rumors about her husband (I say rumors because I don't believe they've been proven) about possible spousal abuse/neglect/overall douchiness.

[mondaynightpoker101]

That is my Point....why did lawmakers find the need to get involved in this particular case??? Why not one of the other million case that are exactly the same????

[RegularJoe]

Make a living will, and you can avoid any chance of something like this happening to you.

not really. the hospital'll side with living relatives in a lot of instances.

[Bill?]

Make a living will, and you can avoid any chance of something like this happening to you.

not really. the hospital'll side with living relatives in a lot of instances.

thats why you not only make a living will, but make sure your family knows and agrees with your wishes.
Terri Schiavo had a legal living will that agreed with what her husband says her wishes were, this would have been over years ago.

[Smokinblues]

Make a living will, and you can avoid any chance of something like this happening to you.

not really. the hospital'll side with living relatives in a lot of instances.

thats why you not only make a living will, but make sure your family knows and agrees with your wishes.
Terri Schiavo had a legal living will that agreed with what her husband says her wishes were, this would have been over years ago.

absent a living will it's word versus word. And word versus word, is it not better to side with life? especially since the parents are willing to accept responsiblity and care for her?

It's not like starving to death is a humane way to let someone go.

[Bill?]

absent a living will it's word versus word. And word versus word, is it not better to side with life? especially since the parents are willing to accept responsiblity and care for her?

It's not like starving to death is a humane way to let someone go.

I don't know. I'm not even sure the state shes in is "life". Legally these decisions are supposed to be up the next of kin (in this case the husband). However her parents have been fighting him in court for like 20 years. The husband, if he's not lying, is trying to do what she told him she wanted. The guy has apparently been offered millions of dollars by various people to sign his rights away and he refused.

[Kensington]

Did you know...
Her parents (the ones making the fuss about keeping her alive) have not visited her for over 6 months.
I don't believe this for a second. Where are you getting this?

[Shwicaz]

INELLAS PARK, Fla. (Reuters) - Doctors removed the feeding tube that has kept a brain-damaged Florida woman alive for 15 years on Friday after U.S. lawmakers tried to prolong her life by subpoenaing her to appear before Congress.

The feeding tube was removed from Terri Schiavo, the woman at the heart of a long and furious right-to-die battle, at 1:45 p.m. (1845 GMT) and she was expected to die in seven to 14 days.

Her husband's lawyer called the last-minute attempt by U.S. congressional Republicans to keep the tube in place "nothing short of thuggery" and called Democrats "spineless" for failing to thwart it.

House of Representatives Majority Leader Tom DeLay called removing the feeding tube "an act of barbarism."

"Terri Schiavo is alive ... She is as alive as you or I, and as such we have a moral obligation to protect and defend her from the fate premeditated by the Florida courts," DeLay said.

Felos said the congressional action was "odious, it was shocking, it was disgusting and I think all Americans should be very alarmed about that."

"They cannot walk over the dying body of Terri Schiavo for political gain," he added.

Schiavo was 26 when she became ill and had no "living will" or written directive about what end-of-life care she might want.

After hearing testimony from doctors and neurologists, the Florida courts ruled that the cardiac arrest robbed her brain of "all but the most instinctive of neurological functions" and that there was no hope she could regain consciousness.

It ruled that she would not have wanted continued life support based in part on a relative's testimony that when her husband's grandmother was being kept alive by a respirator, Terri Schiavo had said, "If I ever go like that, just let me go ... I don't want to be kept alive on a machine."

[Blake Sims]

just let her go

[Jamie Howdeshell]

let the poor woman die. if this country would get a freakin' clue and actually properly address the issue of euthanasia and a person's right to maybe die with at least some dignity, we wouldn't have to let her starve to death.


what i love is that some of the people making the biggest stink over this don't appear to care less about the thousands of innocents killed in the iraq war. i guess it's just a matter of perspective.
:roll:


the spouse versus parents aspect of this is interesting to me. i think most people would be pissed if their parents' wishes were honored over those of their spouses'. spouses are more important than parents. at least, they should be.

[Kensington]

The "spouse" is a joke. He has a common-law marriage and children with another woman. He didn't bother to "remember" that Terri "wanted" to die until she'd been her present state for seven years. A nurse who worked at the convalescent center where Terri lived in the mid 90s swore an affidavit that: "Throughout my time at Palm Gardens, Michael Schiavo was focused on Terri's death. Michael would say 'When is she going to die?' 'Has she died yet?' and 'When is that bitch gonna die?'"

This isn't about "letting" a woman die. Nobody can prove what Terri wanted, nothing is on paper, her family wants to care for her, her "husband" is a sleazebag, and she is being killed in a nightmarish manner, not "allowed" to die.

The whole thing is disgusting and dismaying.

But hey, go ahead and make cheap jokes about it or use it to try and score cheap political points about the Iraq war.

[Kensington]

...the woman has been in a 'persistent vegetative state' say her doctors since 1990.

According to Terri's advocates, it is a myth that she is in a "persistent vegetative state." According to Florida Statute 765.101:
Persistent vegetative state means a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is:

(a) The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of ANY kind.
(b) An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment.

Terri's behavior does not meet the medical or statutory definition of persistent vegetative state. Terri responds to stimuli, tries to communicate verbally, follows limited commands, laughs or cries in interaction with loved ones, physically distances herself from irritating or painful stimulation and watches loved ones as they move around her. None of these behaviors are simple reflexes and are, instead, voluntary and cognitive. Though Terri has limitations, she does interact purposefully with her environment.

So there is conflicting perspectives on the matter, in which case we should err on the side of letting her live and be cared for by the people who love her and want to take care of her.

[Bill?]

The "spouse" is a joke. He has a common-law marriage and children with another woman. He didn't bother to "remember" that Terri "wanted" to die until she'd been her present state for seven years. A nurse who worked at the convalescent center where Terri lived in the mid 90s swore an affidavit that: "Throughout my time at Palm Gardens, Michael Schiavo was focused on Terri's death. Michael would say 'When is she going to die?' 'Has she died yet?' and 'When is that bitch gonna die?'"

This isn't about "letting" a woman die. Nobody can prove what Terri wanted, nothing is on paper, her family wants to care for her, her "husband" is a sleazebag, and she is being killed in a nightmarish manner, not "allowed" to die.

The whole thing is disgusting and dismaying.

But hey, go ahead and make cheap jokes about it or use it to try and score cheap political points about the Iraq war.



Yeah, but you're also getting into things that aren’t part of the issue. You’re really just judging him for two things, moving on, and still wanting to carry out his wife’s wishes. But the real issue is, is this what she would have wanted (and this is what time and time gain the courts have ruled). And he husband is the person that legally is supposed to make that decision. He is her spouse, and as such, is also her legal guardian. Which means he gets to make decisions regarding her legal care.
Also, you ignore that there have been something like 21 legal decisions made in this case, and they have ALL ruled that Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state. They’ve even had "impartial" doctors examine her. By the way it was only three years, just after therapy had failed, that Michael Schiavo signed a do not resuscitate order for his wife.
This thing is disgusting and dismaying because there is no reason at all for this to have gone on this long. There is no reason so many courts and politicians should have been involved. This case is about whether or not a man has a right to make medical decisions for his wife.
Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot, and the husband was arguing that what his wife wanted was to be kept alive. Would you still think he parents should decide?

[Raydawggie]

I think the husband is a douche, but I also know that if it was me, I'd want to be killed instantly. After watching The Sea Inside I promptly let my family know that if I was ever in that situation or anything like it, where there was no hope of recovery, I'd want to be unplugged post haste. And I'm working on getting my living will made up. Yeah, I'm only 21 and it's a bit morbid, but a casual acquaintance of mine was hit by a bus and killed last year. I'm not taking any chances.

[Shannon Chenoweth]

I have one thing to say about this, and I'm not reading the other posts since I'm about to get ready for the con.
I totally believe that they should let her parents be in charge of her. They WANT to take care of her, so the husband should just let them. He doen't care what happens to her anymore.

RC

[Taxman]

I have one thing to say about this, and I'm not reading the other posts since I'm about to get ready for the con.
I totally believe that they should let her parents be in charge of her. They WANT to take care of her, so the husband should just let them. He doen't care what happens to her anymore.

RC

But he is her guardian by law. He also claims that she never wanted to live in this type of state. Were it my wife, I wouldn’t give up the fight either. We both have living wills though, thank The Maker!

[sonnylarue]

My boyfriend and I were just discussing this. I mean the woman has been in a 'persistent vegetative state' say her doctors since 1990. :shock:

I told Matt that if that were me, pull the plug. He talked about establishing a 'living will' just in case something like this happened.

I just don't understand why Congress/The President is getting involved. :?

because they're ASSHOLES.

15 years in a vegetative state? That's a living death, and I'm beyond repulsed at this congressional intervention. They have no shame.

[gwyllgi]

I'd get a living will made up for stuff like this. I wouldn't want to be kept alive by a machine.


And it's fucking sick that someone would want their daughter to live like that.

If I'm ever in that state I hope they let me die.

Hell, I hope someone puts a bullet between my eyes to make it quicker.


And, Rangerchic, you can't just decide on a new legal guardian like that, because you favor their decision. The husband is the LEGAL GUARDIAN and he will STAY the legal guardian for as long as they are married or he signs his rights over.

Them taking that from him just because they're her parents is illegal. Just like capping the poor woman would be.

[sonnylarue]

That is my Point....why did lawmakers find the need to get involved in this particular case??? Why not one of the other million case that are exactly the same????

because many landmark legislation or judiciary decisions come from a single case being petitioned.

Roe Vs Wade (abortion) , Plessy Vs Ferguson (created sepreste but equal) , etc .

This case raises the issue for all those who are in similar situations , with no lving will.

[Ed Crane]

I'd get a living will made up for stuff like this. I wouldn't want to be kept alive by a machine.


And it's fucking sick that someone would want their daughter to live like that.

It's sick to not want to starve your daughter to death when you think she shows signs of awareness and recognition? Color me sick then, because I certainly wouldn't want to do that.

http://www.tldm.org/news6/terri.jpg

And, Rangerchic, you can't just decide on a new legal guardian like that, because you favor their decision. The husband is the LEGAL GUARDIAN and he will STAY the legal guardian for as long as they are married or he signs his rights over.

Them taking that from him just because they're her parents is illegal. Just like capping the poor woman would be.

So...you're saying that the decision of the guardian/acting health care agent should always be followed, no matter how flawed his/her decision making might be? That's a scary proposition. The parents have every right to challenge the husband's decision because A) they feel like he's made a bad choice and B) they don't feel he's looking out for his wife's best interests. They're challenging him through legal channels so what's the problem?

[Bill?]

I have one thing to say about this, and I'm not reading the other posts since I'm about to get ready for the con.
I totally believe that they should let her parents be in charge of her. They WANT to take care of her, so the husband should just let them. He doen't care what happens to her anymore.

RC

I think he must. He’s been offered millions of dollars to sign her care over to her parents. He claims he's just trying to do what she told him she wanted.
Just because he may have started to move on in his personal life, doesn’t mean he doesn’t still want to do what she would have wanted.

[Shwicaz]

new info:

Bush, Congress Set to Act in Right-To-Die Case

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) cut short a holiday to return to Washington and be ready to sign a bill that may keep a brain-damaged woman alive in a case pitting Christian conservatives against right-to-die activists.

In a rare Sunday session, the U.S. House of Representatives was to discuss a deal aimed at pushing the Florida case into federal court and restoring the feeding tube that has kept Terri Schiavo alive for the past 15 years.

"The president intends to sign legislation as quickly as possible once it is passed," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. "This is about defending life."

A deal on the bill, which could be approved by Monday, was forged on Saturday, 24 hours after doctors removed the 41-year-old woman's feeding tube under a Florida court order.

Bush was to return to Washington from a break at his Texas ranch.

Schiavo's husband and legal guardian, Michael Schiavo, has long argued -- and has been supported by the courts -- that his wife would not have wanted to live in such a condition.

Her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, have persistently appealed, believing their daughter responds to them and could improve with treatment.

Supporters of the bill believe that a judge would ask for the feeding tube to be reinserted so Schiavo did not die before a U.S. federal court review required by the legislation was complete.

"It would be irresponsible not to begin by preserving the individual about whom the case is to be about," Sen. Mel Martinez, a Florida Republican, told a news conference. He compared it to death-penalty cases subject to federal review.

Schiavo has been fed through a stomach tube since a heart attack starved her brain of oxygen in 1990, leaving her in what the courts declared was a persistent vegetative state.

The tube feeding has twice been halted and resumed in the past amid legal wrangles and she was expected to survive for one to two weeks without the tube.

Until now, federal courts have turned the case back to state courts during a bitter seven-year legal battle over Schiavo's fate. But intense lobbying by Christian conservatives and widespread publicity have made the issue a political test case.

"GREAT POLITICAL ISSUE"

A memo distributed to Republican senators by party leaders called the case a "great political issue" and a "tough issue for Democrats," the Washington Post said in its Sunday edition.

It said the case would excite the party's anti-abortion base and put pressure on Florida Sen. Bill Nelson (news, bio, voting record), a Democrat who faces re-election next year.

Husband Michael Schiavo assailed the congressional attempts to intervene.

"They should be ashamed of themselves," he said in an interview with CBS television before the latest deal was disclosed. "Leave my wife alone. Leave me alone."



Schiavo's mother urged politicians in Florida and Washington to help keep her daughter alive.

"My daughter is in the building behind me starving to death. We laugh together, we cry together, we smile together, we talk together. She is my life," Mary Schindler said before visiting her daughter Saturday.

Martinez rejected criticisms that lawmakers were grandstanding over the issue.

"Nothing could be further from the truth. This is a difficult, gut-wrenching issue," he said.

Dozens of people protested outside the Florida hospice where Schiavo has lived in recent years. At least two were arrested on Saturday when they tried to cross a police line with a symbolic offering of food and water for her.

[chrisfasowned]

the thing about "pulling the plug" is that she's not being kept alive through a respirator or anything like that. her heart works fine, her lungs work fine. it's a FEEDING TUBE keeping her alive. which is more humane-- letting her starve to death or keeping her alive in a vegitative state by feeding her?

[DaveCummings]

I think that they should let her live.

What her Husband said about what she wanted is kinda fishy anyways. I mean, he waited a couple of years, after he won like a million bucks through a malpractice suit before he was like "oh yeah, she didn't want to live that way, she told me that one time before when we were watching TV". I mean, you'd think the guy would of expressed that immediately.

That and after seeing footage of the lady on TV, I don't think she is in a persistant Vegatative state. It's funny though, a couple of doctors say she is, but then there are alot of other doctors who disagree with that.

I know alot of you say that if it was you, you'd want to die. But, with her parents, they see a spark of life in there, it may be faint, but to them it's there. And to them as long as it is there, hope remains that she may recover. I mean, she is not going to get up and sing and dance a jig, but they have hope that she will recover, at least somewhat.

But, yeah it's up to the caretaker overall, which is Michael.

But, at the same time, if he really felt like he just didn't want her to go on after a couple of frustrating years of her in this condition, maybe all of a sudden saying that she didn't want this after all this time has passed was not that good of a tactic. I mean if he just said straight up, "Look guys, I know you're her parents and you still hope for the best, but this is really frustrating to me and I really don't think that she would want to live this way for this long". I think that things would probably have gone alot more smoothly.


~Dave

[Ed Crane]

the thing about "pulling the plug" is that she's not being kept alive through a respirator or anything like that. her heart works fine, her lungs work fine. it's a FEEDING TUBE keeping her alive. which is more humane-- letting her starve to death or keeping her alive in a vegitative state by feeding her?

Yeah, that's what freaks me out. As I stated in the other Terry Schiavo thread, I work for an agency that provides residential care for retarded/handicapped individuals. Plenty of them are severely brain damaged, plenty of them are fed through feeding tubes. Their care is maintained, they are kept comfortable, and their continued existence means a lot to their loved ones and the people that care for them. No one would EVER consider removing their feeding tubes and starving them to death in order to 'end the suffering'. That's just crazy.

[GoddessOKay]

Anyone else find it odd that it took months/years to form a decision on whether to even form a 9/11 committee...

...or how it took months/years to get body armor for our troops in Iraq (and elsewhere--and some still don't have any....)

but when it comes to 'smaller' matters like Steroids in baseball, a federal gay marriage ammendment, and this case here.... everything has to be done right away...?

Congress is supposed to recess for two weeks, but feel this issue is important enough to come back on monday for....

if only they were this dedicated for every issue, not just ones that involve 'right to life' cases, gay cases, or drug cases.

(or is that just the cynic in me talking? )
nope, you're right :|

[Kensington]

I mean, he waited a couple of years, after he won like a million bucks through a malpractice suit before he was like "oh yeah, she didn't want to live that way, she told me that one time before when we were watching TV". I mean, you'd think the guy would of expressed that immediately.
He waited four years after the malpracticue suit (7 years after she first went into her coma) before saying that she told him not to let her live. That does seem fishy to me.

However, to be fair to him, it looks like he has not, and will not, profit personally from any leftover malpractice money, which has been pledged to charity. It also seems that his brother and sister also testified as to Terri's wish not to be kept alive in unusual circumstances.

Still, although the judge didn't think it was significant that this information took seven years to disclose, I'm not so blaise. It's not like the importance of telling the truth in court hasn't taken a severe beating in this country over the last ten years. There are a lot of people who would commit perjury as long as it was for what they perceived was a greater good. :?

[Kensington]

the thing about "pulling the plug" is that she's not being kept alive through a respirator or anything like that. her heart works fine, her lungs work fine. it's a FEEDING TUBE keeping her alive. which is more humane-- letting her starve to death or keeping her alive in a vegitative state by feeding her?
It's "humane" to starve someone to death? We don't even let people do that to their dogs because it would be inhumane. We can't do that to death row prisoners because it would be cruel and unusual.

[xyzzy]

the thing about "pulling the plug" is that she's not being kept alive through a respirator or anything like that. her heart works fine, her lungs work fine. it's a FEEDING TUBE keeping her alive. which is more humane-- letting her starve to death or keeping her alive in a vegitative state by feeding her?
It's "humane" to starve someone to death? We don't even let people do that to their dogs because it would be inhumane. We can't do that to death row prisoners because it would be cruel and unusual.

She's already dead. Her body is just being kept alive.

[xyzzy]

That is my Point....why did lawmakers find the need to get involved in this particular case??? Why not one of the other million case that are exactly the same????

because many landmark legislation or judiciary decisions come from a single case being petitioned.

Roe Vs Wade (abortion) , Plessy Vs Ferguson (created sepreste but equal) , etc .

This case raises the issue for all those who are in similar situations , with no lving will.

Did Congress try to pass emergency legislation to circumvent the court rulings in those cases, though?

[Bill?]

Did Congress try to pass emergency legislation to circumvent the court rulings in those cases, though?

No. And it’s a ridiculous overriding of states rights that they're intervening in this case.

[chrisfasowned]

the thing about "pulling the plug" is that she's not being kept alive through a respirator or anything like that. her heart works fine, her lungs work fine. it's a FEEDING TUBE keeping her alive. which is more humane-- letting her starve to death or keeping her alive in a vegitative state by feeding her?
It's "humane" to starve someone to death? We don't even let people do that to their dogs because it would be inhumane. We can't do that to death row prisoners because it would be cruel and unusual.

She's already dead. Her body is just being kept alive.

kensington, you made my point for me. thank you.

xyzzy, BZZT, WRONG! she's not being "kept alive" she was being FED. hello? depriving someone of nourishment is STARVATION.

to reiterate a previous post:

Yeah, that's what freaks me out. As I stated in the other Terry Schiavo thread, I work for an agency that provides residential care for retarded/handicapped individuals. Plenty of them are severely brain damaged, plenty of them are fed through feeding tubes. Their care is maintained, they are kept comfortable, and their continued existence means a lot to their loved ones and the people that care for them. No one would EVER consider removing their feeding tubes and starving them to death in order to 'end the suffering'. That's just crazy.

i don't see how people could think it's okay to let someone starve to death. it's an agonizing and horrible way to die...

[quote="quote"]Starvation is the most severe form of malnutrition. It may result from fasting, famine, anorexia nervosa, catastrophic disease of the GI tract, stroke, or coma. The basic metabolic response to starvation is conservation of energy and body tissues. However, the body will mobilize its own tissues as a source of energy, which results in the destruction of visceral organs and muscle and in extreme shrinkage of adipose tissue. Total starvation is fatal in 8 to 12 wk(s)[/qoute]

http://www.merck.com/mrkshared/mmanual/section1/chapter2/2b.jsp

...8 to 12 weeks?! this is how long it could take terri schaivo to die. Jesus Christ, how sick and insensitive can people be to think it's okay to remove her feeding tube so she can pass away like this?

[xyzzy]

the thing about "pulling the plug" is that she's not being kept alive through a respirator or anything like that. her heart works fine, her lungs work fine. it's a FEEDING TUBE keeping her alive. which is more humane-- letting her starve to death or keeping her alive in a vegitative state by feeding her?
It's "humane" to starve someone to death? We don't even let people do that to their dogs because it would be inhumane. We can't do that to death row prisoners because it would be cruel and unusual.

She's already dead. Her body is just being kept alive.

kensington, you made my point for me. thank you.

xyzzy, BZZT, WRONG! she's not being "kept alive" she was being FED. hello? depriving someone of nourishment is STARVATION.


She has no mental activity. Her mind is gone. Whatever's left there isn't a person, it's just a body.

[Bill?]

kensington, you made my point for me. thank you.

xyzzy, BZZT, WRONG! she's not being "kept alive" she was being FED. hello? depriving someone of nourishment is STARVATION.



She’s considered clinically dead. She’s not like a retarded person with a limited understanding or anything like that. Her mind is gone. A feeding tube is considered a life saving machine just like a respirator.
Legally. The husband is well within his rights. as has been proven time and time again in the courts.
It’s absolutely insane that this has gone on as long as it has and that congress has no injected itself into this. There hasn’t been such a large overriding of states rights and the separation of powers in decades.

[Smokinblues]

kensington, you made my point for me. thank you.

xyzzy, BZZT, WRONG! she's not being "kept alive" she was being FED. hello? depriving someone of nourishment is STARVATION.



She’s considered clinically dead. She’s not like a retarded person with a limited understanding or anything like that. Her mind is gone. A feeding tube is considered a life saving machine just like a respirator.
Legally. The husband is well within his rights. as has been proven time and time again in the courts.
It’s absolutely insane that this has gone on as long as it has and that congress has no injected itself into this. There hasn’t been such a large overriding of states rights and the separation of powers in decades.

Not since Roe v Wade.

[Bill?]

Not since Roe v Wade.

before that even. I don't think congress even intervened there.

[sonnylarue]

It’s absolutely insane that this has gone on as long as it has and that congress has now injected itself into this. There hasn’t been such a large overriding of states rights and the separation of powers in decades.


even more so that it's THE GOP leading the charge, who up until this religious sect took full control of the party, was all about LESS INTERVENTION from the federal gov't in private lives.


a complete 180 from the party who came to power in 1994 with the contract for america.

I wish some real CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS would explain to their supposed moral GOP pals, that leaving things to "God's Will" would not include force feeding tubes.

The congress has become the living definition of unmitigated gall.

[Shane W]

the thing about "pulling the plug" is that she's not being kept alive through a respirator or anything like that. her heart works fine, her lungs work fine. it's a FEEDING TUBE keeping her alive. which is more humane-- letting her starve to death or keeping her alive in a vegitative state by feeding her?
It's "humane" to starve someone to death? We don't even let people do that to their dogs because it would be inhumane. We can't do that to death row prisoners because it would be cruel and unusual.

She's already dead. Her body is just being kept alive.

kensington, you made my point for me. thank you.

xyzzy, BZZT, WRONG! she's not being "kept alive" she was being FED. hello? depriving someone of nourishment is STARVATION.


She has no mental activity. Her mind is gone. Whatever's left there isn't a person, it's just a body.

Actually the way they do it is very humane, she'll be so morphined up, that even if she can feel pain, she won't notice. I wish euthunasia was permitted in cases like this.

[Patrick J]

Actually the way they do it is very humane, she'll be so morphined up, that even if she can feel pain, she won't notice. I wish euthunasia was permitted in cases like this.

Too bad the Medical Industry won't ever allow that to happen.

I said earlier, and I'll say it again, the woman should be allowed to die.

Personally, I don't doubt that the husband has ulterior motives, based on what I've read, even still, she should be allowed to die.

It's nice that the parents want to take care of her and all that, but they shouldn't be clinging onto a hope of something that is never going to happen.

There's all this talk that "Ohhhh poor Terry, she can think, she has limited brain activity" and yadda yadda yadda. IF there's anything left of Terry Shiavo left in that broken body, who's to say she isn't saying "Kill me now, please."

[mario]

sigh, give her a shot so she can get her peace.

The husband has turned down a million dollars to let her live. That's what i call a loving thing to do. Sometimes it's better to die with dignity that an embarrasmently prolonged "non-death"

If the parents truely love her daughter, they wouldn't let her suffer like this anymore. It's time for closure

[Ed Crane]

the thing about "pulling the plug" is that she's not being kept alive through a respirator or anything like that. her heart works fine, her lungs work fine. it's a FEEDING TUBE keeping her alive. which is more humane-- letting her starve to death or keeping her alive in a vegitative state by feeding her?
It's "humane" to starve someone to death? We don't even let people do that to their dogs because it would be inhumane. We can't do that to death row prisoners because it would be cruel and unusual.

She's already dead. Her body is just being kept alive.

kensington, you made my point for me. thank you.

xyzzy, BZZT, WRONG! she's not being "kept alive" she was being FED. hello? depriving someone of nourishment is STARVATION.


She has no mental activity. Her mind is gone. Whatever's left there isn't a person, it's just a body.

Well, there are thousands of brain damaged/retarded people in care facilities all over the country who have very little brain activity and might be described as 'vegetables'. I'd be willing to guess that a significant amount of them rely on feeding tubes to survive. Should we remove all their tubes so that we can 'end the suffering' and 'allow' them to die? This woman isn't being 'allowed to die', she's being killed. The means exist to care for her and maintain her comfort. If she has loved ones that want to keep her around and are willing to provide care, I don't see any reason to condemn her to this slow death.

[Ashton]

They need to let her go- that's no way to live.

[sonnylarue]

Well, there are thousands of brain damaged/retarded people in care facilities all over the country who have very little brain activity and might be described as 'vegetables'. I'd be willing to guess that a significant amount of them rely on feeding tubes to survive. Should we remove all their tubes so that we can 'end the suffering' and 'allow' them to die? This woman isn't being 'allowed to die', she's being killed. The means exist to care for her and maintain her comfort. If she has loved ones that want to keep her around and are willing to provide care, I don't see any reason to condemn her to this slow death.


your arguement is based on speculation, while doctors, lawyers, and judges have spent REAL TIME dealing with the facts of this case.

Congress is getting involved in a personal family matter, that has been resolved by the florida courts.

There are no laws being broken here. The federal gov't is overstepping its bounds in a very shallow display of pandering, to cater to a group of voters.

This woman's "slow death" has been going on for 15 years.

[XSaraXPoeX]

I honestly don't know how to feel about this. It's a horrible thing to live that way but starving to death is even worse. I believe that she has the right to live no matter what condition she's in, but I also believe that if she said she didn't want to live that way then she shouldn't have to.

I'm just it's not a decision I have to make on someone I love.

[Anad]

In some ways comparing:

Have you ever seen a chicken get it's head cut off. It will fly around for a good deal of time... without a head. Even sometimes landing and then walking around.

Unfortunately Terri is somewhat like a chicken, we all are.

From what I have read and seen on interviews, Terri has her lower brain intact, but not her upper brain capacity. Her movements are random and involuntary.

I'm also speaking from a little experience as I had a fiancee die in a coma. My fiancee's parents were the least realistic about the situation. Especially her Mother. See took every twitch as a sign that she was trying to comunicate. Meanwhile the brainwaves showed no sign of this. Thankfully no one had to make a decision to unplug or remove anything in my fiancee's case. She passed on her own, but was hooked up to machines at the time giving her food and oxygen.

[Kensington]

IF there's anything left of Terry Shiavo left in that broken body, who's to say she isn't saying "Kill me now, please."
"Who's to say?" I don't know, but if it's true that no one can say with any certainty what she wants, I think it's more appropriate to err on the side of life.

[DaveCummings]

In some ways comparing:

From what I have read and seen on interviews, Terri has her lower brain intact, but not her upper brain capacity. Her movements are random and involuntary.


I am not too sure about that. There's an audiotape Terri's father recorded after the feeding tube was removed on Friday. He went in there talking to her. First she was quiet, then as he asked her how was she feeling, she started to moan. All of the moans were just general and could be viewed as involuntary or whatever. That is until he tried to get her to tell him hello. The moans sounded like she was trying to vocalize. Michael and the doctors try to say that she won't feel pain as she starves. Well, if she can't feel pain, why do they have to give her pain relievers once a month due to menstrual cramps, which cause her to moan in pain?

The thing is PVS which she is supposedly in, is misdiagnosed 40% percent of the time. We need other doctors in there to view her condition and give thier diagnosis, not just the ones that Michael selected himself.

The doctors try to say that there is no progress. Yeah, there would be no progress, when she is denied outside stimuli. I mean, he won't let the curtains be drawn so sun can be in the room, they are not allowed to have the TV or radio on, they can't even brush her goddamned teeth. I mean, the only stimuli she recieves is from her parents. It's almost as he doesn't want her to have stimulus because she you know, might actually make progress.

~Dave

[Kensington]

In some ways comparing:

From what I have read and seen on interviews, Terri has her lower brain intact, but not her upper brain capacity. Her movements are random and involuntary.

I am not too sure about that. There's an audiotape Terri's father recorded after the feeding tube was removed on Friday. He went in there talking to her. First she was quiet, then as he asked her how was she feeling, she started to moan. All of the moans were just general and could be viewed as involuntary or whatever. That is until he tried to get her to tell him hello. The moans sounded like she was trying to vocalize. Michael and the doctors try to say that she won't feel pain as she starves. Well, if she can't feel pain, why do they have to give her pain relievers once a month due to menstrual cramps, which cause her to moan in pain?

The thing is PVS which she is supposedly in, is misdiagnosed 40% percent of the time. We need other doctors in there to view her condition and give thier diagnosis, not just the ones that Michael selected himself.

The doctors try to say that there is no progress. Yeah, there would be no progress, when she is denied outside stimuli. I mean, he won't let the curtains be drawn so sun can be in the room, they are not allowed to have the TV or radio on, they can't even brush her goddamned teeth. I mean, the only stimuli she recieves is from her parents. It's almost as he doesn't want her to have stimulus because she you know, might actually make progress.
I heard that tape last night -- it's chilling, but I'm sure it could *only* be incidental winds passing through her vocal chords accidentally; the state told me so. Besides, life is only for the obviously robust, especially if George W. Bush wants her to live. In any case, starving her to death will soon put a stop to this.

Well, maybe not *soon,* but, you know...eventually.

Maybe a compromise could be reached. We'll keep her alive, and in return she'll be allowed to vote Democrat in the next elections. Maybe that would change Barney Frank's mind...

And also, any Republican who is championing this poor woman solely for political gain is a douchebag, too, but at least their partisanship serves the cause of life.

[Brendan]

The fact that this issue is even debated shows how low our culture has fallen. Terri is not in a vegitative state. She's not brain dead. And this isn't about unplugging a machine that makes her heart beat or helps her breathe. We're talking about STARVING a woman to death. Inhumane doesn't even begin to describe this. We treat convicted murderers better than this poor woman.

And those of you championing the supposed rights of her "husband" need to get all the facts. There's a lot of shady stuff going on with this guy. There's more than a little suspicion that the accident that put Terri in this state was brought on by abuse. When it first happened, the husband swore to do everything he could for her. Then he found a new woman, with whom he has been living with for years, fathered children, but still has not divorced Terri. He has repeatedly refused to answer questions concerning the Life Insurance policy he took out on Terri, of which he would be the solde beneficiary in the event of her death.

This isn't about the right to die. This is about the right of a man to starve his incapacitated wife to death in order to collect a bunch of cash.

We're a sick, deprived culture to allow this to happen.

[Kensington]

The fact that this issue is even debated shows how low our culture has fallen. Terri is not in a vegitative state. She's not brain dead. And this isn't about unplugging a machine that makes her heart beat or helps her breathe. We're talking about STARVING a woman to death. Inhumane doesn't even begin to describe this. We treat convicted murderers better than this poor woman.

And those of you championing the supposed rights of her "husband" need to get all the facts. There's a lot of shady stuff going on with this guy. There's more than a little suspicion that the accident that put Terri in this state was brought on by abuse. When it first happened, the husband swore to do everything he could for her. Then he found a new woman, with whom he has been living with for years, fathered children, but still has not divorced Terri. He has repeatedly refused to answer questions concerning the Life Insurance policy he took out on Terri, of which he would be the solde beneficiary in the event of her death.

This isn't about the right to die. This is about the right of a man to starve his incapacitated wife to death in order to collect a bunch of cash.

We're a sick, deprived culture to allow this to happen.
BRAVO!

[Miken Ayers]

If thats what she wanted, I agree>

well you'd think if anybody would know what she wanted, it'd be her husband.

Or maybe the husband wants to go pick up chicks again, but has this warped sense of honor.

[Brendan]

i think they should leave it up to her husband and leave them the fuck alone.

I'm sure Scott Peterson agrees with you 100%.

[Fourthman]

i think they should leave it up to her husband and leave them the fuck alone.

I'm sure Scott Peterson agrees with you 100%.

Classy, how very Roy Cohn of you.

[Brendan]

Roy Cohn

Who???

[TyPierce]

My boyfriend and I were just discussing this. I mean the woman has been in a 'persistent vegetative state' say her doctors since 1990. :shock:

I told Matt that if that were me, pull the plug. He talked about establishing a 'living will' just in case something like this happened.

I just don't understand why Congress/The President is getting involved. :?

I believe because it's politically convenient.

Check this out... Link: GOP memo says issue offers political rewards (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002213728_memo20.html)

It's sad, because the husband's been fighting this in court for 7 years, and now he gets to watch his wife become a political tool.

Horrible.

[Kensington]

My boyfriend and I were just discussing this. I mean the woman has been in a 'persistent vegetative state' say her doctors since 1990. :shock:

I told Matt that if that were me, pull the plug. He talked about establishing a 'living will' just in case something like this happened.

I just don't understand why Congress/The President is getting involved. :?

I believe because it's politically convenient.

Check this out... Link: GOP memo says issue offers political rewards (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002213728_memo20.html)

It's sad, because the husband's been fighting this in court for 7 years, and now he gets to watch his wife become a political tool.

Horrible.
Just because some callous douchebag writes a memo, that doesn't mean that everyone (or anyone, for that matter) in his party agrees with him.

[Anad]

The fact that this issue is even debated shows how low our culture has fallen. Terri is not in a vegitative state. She's not brain dead. And this isn't about unplugging a machine that makes her heart beat or helps her breathe. We're talking about STARVING a woman to death. Inhumane doesn't even begin to describe this. We treat convicted murderers better than this poor woman.

And those of you championing the supposed rights of her "husband" need to get all the facts. There's a lot of shady stuff going on with this guy. There's more than a little suspicion that the accident that put Terri in this state was brought on by abuse. When it first happened, the husband swore to do everything he could for her. Then he found a new woman, with whom he has been living with for years, fathered children, but still has not divorced Terri. He has repeatedly refused to answer questions concerning the Life Insurance policy he took out on Terri, of which he would be the solde beneficiary in the event of her death.

This isn't about the right to die. This is about the right of a man to starve his incapacitated wife to death in order to collect a bunch of cash.

We're a sick, deprived culture to allow this to happen.

Sorry, it looks to me that she is brain dead.

Do you realize that starvation and dehydration is how most people die? People get old and their body shuts itself down. They loose the desire to eat, drink and then slowly die. Have you ever visited retirement homes? I've visited with the elderly and this is a very common occurrence.

This entire situation is being over simplified and at the same time exaggerated for the gain of a politicians and power mongers such as James Dobson.

It is about the right to die in a humane way rather then being propped up by technology like a exhibit at a side show.

I understand people have different frames of reference for things and it is good to have dialogue on these and other issues, but many will never be simply rapped up because of all the manipulation of facts.

[Shane W]

The fact that this issue is even debated shows how low our culture has fallen. Terri is not in a vegitative state. She's not brain dead. And this isn't about unplugging a machine that makes her heart beat or helps her breathe. We're talking about STARVING a woman to death. Inhumane doesn't even begin to describe this. We treat convicted murderers better than this poor woman.

And those of you championing the supposed rights of her "husband" need to get all the facts. There's a lot of shady stuff going on with this guy. There's more than a little suspicion that the accident that put Terri in this state was brought on by abuse. When it first happened, the husband swore to do everything he could for her. Then he found a new woman, with whom he has been living with for years, fathered children, but still has not divorced Terri. He has repeatedly refused to answer questions concerning the Life Insurance policy he took out on Terri, of which he would be the solde beneficiary in the event of her death.

This isn't about the right to die. This is about the right of a man to starve his incapacitated wife to death in order to collect a bunch of cash.

We're a sick, deprived culture to allow this to happen.

Sorry, it looks to me that she is brain dead.

Do you realize that starvation and dehydration is how most people die? People get old and their body shuts itself down. They loose the desire to eat, drink and then slowly die. Have you ever visited retirement homes? I've visited with the elderly and this is a very common occurrence.

This entire situation is being over simplified and at the same time exaggerated for the gain of a politicians and power mongers such as James Dobson.

It is about the right to die in a humane way rather then being propped up by technology like a exhibit at a side show.

I understand people have different frames of reference for things and it is good to have dialogue on these and other issues, but many will never be simply rapped up because of all the manipulation of facts.

A guy at work just came in and was talking about this.. He said if starvation is so humane, why are the left so hell bent of feeding the hungry?

I have to admit, I got a chuckle out of it.

[Bill?]

i think they should leave it up to her husband and leave them the fuck alone.

I'm sure Scott Peterson agrees with you 100%.

so your message here is -"i gave no real argument anymore so i'll just make an inflamatory statement and prove myself a douche."

[Anad]

The fact that this issue is even debated shows how low our culture has fallen. Terri is not in a vegitative state. She's not brain dead. And this isn't about unplugging a machine that makes her heart beat or helps her breathe. We're talking about STARVING a woman to death. Inhumane doesn't even begin to describe this. We treat convicted murderers better than this poor woman.

And those of you championing the supposed rights of her "husband" need to get all the facts. There's a lot of shady stuff going on with this guy. There's more than a little suspicion that the accident that put Terri in this state was brought on by abuse. When it first happened, the husband swore to do everything he could for her. Then he found a new woman, with whom he has been living with for years, fathered children, but still has not divorced Terri. He has repeatedly refused to answer questions concerning the Life Insurance policy he took out on Terri, of which he would be the solde beneficiary in the event of her death.

This isn't about the right to die. This is about the right of a man to starve his incapacitated wife to death in order to collect a bunch of cash.

We're a sick, deprived culture to allow this to happen.

Sorry, it looks to me that she is brain dead.

Do you realize that starvation and dehydration is how most people die? People get old and their body shuts itself down. They loose the desire to eat, drink and then slowly die. Have you ever visited retirement homes? I've visited with the elderly and this is a very common occurrence.

This entire situation is being over simplified and at the same time exaggerated for the gain of a politicians and power mongers such as James Dobson.

It is about the right to die in a humane way rather then being propped up by technology like a exhibit at a side show.

I understand people have different frames of reference for things and it is good to have dialogue on these and other issues, but many will never be simply rapped up because of all the manipulation of facts.

A guy at work just came in and was talking about this.. He said if starvation is so humane, why are the left so hell bent of feeding the hungry?

I have to admit, I got a chuckle out of it.

It is a funny joke, but he's admitting that the Right doesn't give a rats ass about the Hungry unless it is for political gain?

Of course there is a difference as I'm sure you are aware. You are a smart guy.

[Shane W]

The fact that this issue is even debated shows how low our culture has fallen. Terri is not in a vegitative state. She's not brain dead. And this isn't about unplugging a machine that makes her heart beat or helps her breathe. We're talking about STARVING a woman to death. Inhumane doesn't even begin to describe this. We treat convicted murderers better than this poor woman.

And those of you championing the supposed rights of her "husband" need to get all the facts. There's a lot of shady stuff going on with this guy. There's more than a little suspicion that the accident that put Terri in this state was brought on by abuse. When it first happened, the husband swore to do everything he could for her. Then he found a new woman, with whom he has been living with for years, fathered children, but still has not divorced Terri. He has repeatedly refused to answer questions concerning the Life Insurance policy he took out on Terri, of which he would be the solde beneficiary in the event of her death.

This isn't about the right to die. This is about the right of a man to starve his incapacitated wife to death in order to collect a bunch of cash.

We're a sick, deprived culture to allow this to happen.

Sorry, it looks to me that she is brain dead.

Do you realize that starvation and dehydration is how most people die? People get old and their body shuts itself down. They loose the desire to eat, drink and then slowly die. Have you ever visited retirement homes? I've visited with the elderly and this is a very common occurrence.

This entire situation is being over simplified and at the same time exaggerated for the gain of a politicians and power mongers such as James Dobson.

It is about the right to die in a humane way rather then being propped up by technology like a exhibit at a side show.

I understand people have different frames of reference for things and it is good to have dialogue on these and other issues, but many will never be simply rapped up because of all the manipulation of facts.

A guy at work just came in and was talking about this.. He said if starvation is so humane, why are the left so hell bent of feeding the hungry?

I have to admit, I got a chuckle out of it.

It is a funny joke, but he's admitting that the Right doesn't give a rats ass about the Hungry unless it is for political gain?

Of course there is a difference as I'm sure you are aware. You are a smart guy.

Yes, I know the difference. It just struck me as funny.

Just for the record, I'm for pulling the tube, but I wish there was a quicker way to do it instead of waiting it out.

[Anad]

My boyfriend and I were just discussing this. I mean the woman has been in a 'persistent vegetative state' say her doctors since 1990. :shock:

I told Matt that if that were me, pull the plug. He talked about establishing a 'living will' just in case something like this happened.

I just don't understand why Congress/The President is getting involved. :?

I believe because it's politically convenient.

Check this out... Link: GOP memo says issue offers political rewards (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002213728_memo20.html)

It's sad, because the husband's been fighting this in court for 7 years, and now he gets to watch his wife become a political tool.

Horrible.
Just because some callous douchebag writes a memo, that doesn't mean that everyone (or anyone, for that matter) in his party agrees with him.

The fact that Bush has rushed so fast on this, shows that his party agrees with this memo. Bush never rushes to anything to save lives. Look at how quick he was as Governor to execute Mentally Handicapped people. Look at Iraq? Look at Sudan... oh wait Bush isn't doing anything about thousands of people getting murdered daily, just the one life that can benefit him politically.

Dobson and other religious backers are breathing down his neck on this. Since they see it as a means to manipulate more of their flocks (I'm saying this as a Christian).

Mmmm isn't Bush for less government?

[Bill?]

The fact that Bush has rushed so fast on this, shows that his party agrees with this memo. Bush never rushes to anything to save lives. Look at how quick he was as Governor to execute Mentally Handicapped people. Look at Iraq? Look at Sudan... oh wait Bush isn't doing anything about thousands of people getting murdered daily, just the one life that can benefit him politically.

Dobson and other religious backers are breathing down his neck on this. Since they see it as a means to manipulate more of their flocks (I'm saying this as a Christian).

Mmmm isn't Bush for less government?

He’s also a giant hypocrite. A law Bush singed as governor of Texas allowed a hospital to pull the plug on a 6-month-old baby over the parent’s objections.

[Kensington]

The fact that Bush has rushed so fast on this, shows that his party agrees with this memo. Bush never rushes to anything to save lives.
Nonsense. You can generalize about Republicans all you like, but the fact that Bush has "rushed so fast" does not prove that he agrees with some callous douchebag's memo about capitalizing politically on Terri Schiavo.

[Shwicaz]

And those of you championing the supposed rights of her "husband" need to get all the facts. There's a lot of shady stuff going on with this guy. There's more than a little suspicion that the accident that put Terri in this state was brought on by abuse.


Really, where did you hear that, because all of the news reports I have read, including the latest one this morning, said this:

Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage in 1990 when her heart stopped briefly because of a possible potassium imbalance brought on by an eating disorder. She can breathe on her own, but has relied on the feeding tube to keep her alive.



Your mentioning it was the first I have heard of any 'shady character' and 'abuse suspictions'.

[David Aspmo]

I hear people (not just here, but, you know, congressmen and such) disagreeing about whether or not she's brain dead (with regard to her higher brain functions that provide cognition and sentience, anyway - clearly her autonomic systems are still functioning).

Now, isn't that something that's verifiable either way?

I thought I heard one of the doctors who actually treated her say that there is zero higher brain activity. Now, that's either true or not, right?

To me, this seems like the absolute crux of the matter.

.
David Aspmo

[Kensington]

He’s also a giant hypocrite. A law Bush singed as governor of Texas allowed a hospital to pull the plug on a 6-month-old baby over the parent’s objections.
Well, here (http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/05_03_20_corner-archive.asp#058783)'s a different take on Bush's "hypocricy" in this instance, namely, that the law you're citing was actually an *improvement,* however flawed, upon the existing Texas law and gave patient's *more* protections against hospitals pulling the plug then they had before. Here's part of the background. The existing law in Texas...
...hospitals in Houston were denying life-saving treatment, food and fluids against the wishes of patients and their families, when the hospital ethics committees said their quality of life was too poor. Patients and families were being given only 72 hours after being notified of the proposed denial to find another health care provider.

The legislation that Governor Bush was able to sign granted:
...more protections for in-hospital review;
second, gave patients 10 days of treatment while seeking transfer, and
third, authorized court proceedings to extend the 10 days for reasonable additional periods to accomplish transfer.
Not hypocritical at all. Patients had *more* rights after Bush's law then they had *before.* He wanted more comprehensive patient's rights, but he didn't have the votes for it.

[Evan Wiener]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What amazes me about this whole issue right now, is that the Conservatives in Congress are doing this because of a political power struggle with the Judicial branch. Due to many cases like Gay Marriage, conservatives feel activist judges have been over-stepping authority of their branch of government.

Now Republicans are violating their own politics, meddling in state affiars from the Federal level, while sticking to their 25 year trend of meddling in the affairs of family and what morals they want to insert into the "American Family." I wonder what kind of strife this would have started if Florida wasn't governed by the President's brother, and had a Democrat for Governer. Show me a politician, and I'll show you a hyppocrite. (This goes for both sides, by the way. It just so happens, this one's the Republicans.)

[Bill?]

Well, here (http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/05_03_20_corner-archive.asp#058783)'s a different take on Bush's "hypocricy" in this instance, namely, that the law you're citing was actually an *improvement,* however flawed, upon the existing Texas law and gave patient's *more* protections against hospitals pulling the plug then they had before. Here's part of the background. The existing law in Texas...
...hospitals in Houston were denying life-saving treatment, food and fluids against the wishes of patients and their families, when the hospital ethics committees said their quality of life was too poor. Patients and families were being given only 72 hours after being notified of the proposed denial to find another health care provider.

The legislation that Governor Bush was able to sign granted:
...more protections for in-hospital review;
second, gave patients 10 days of treatment while seeking transfer, and
third, authorized court proceedings to extend the 10 days for reasonable additional periods to accomplish transfer.
Not hypocritical at all. Patients had *more* rights after Bush's law then they had *before.* He wanted more comprehensive patient's rights, but he didn't have the votes for it.


Right. The 6-month old boy died because his parents couldn’t pay. Which means they couldn’t move to another care facility in Texas, because they could pay there either. Its hypocritical because he didn’t step in to save patients that died under his law. His argument now is that he stepped in because he wants to come down on the “side of life”.
It was a bill passed to save costs for hospitals. He did that to score the right political points, and that’s why he stepped in here. To score political points.

[Shane W]

The problem with this situation, comes down to her real wishes. If we go by his word without any written expressed directive, then we are possibly opening up a can of worms in future cases.

[Kensington]

Right. The 6-month old boy died because his parents couldn’t pay. Which means they couldn’t move to another care facility in Texas, because they could pay there either. Its hypocritical because he didn’t step in to save patients that died under his law.
Huh? If a six-month-old boy died because his parents couldn't pay, how does that qualify as dying "under his law," a law which gave patient's more rights then they had before? The law you're citing was not about a patient's ability to pay their bills, it was about what rights a patient has when a hospital decides to deny life support. Is George Bush a hypocrite every time a poor person dies now?
His argument now is that he stepped in because he wants to come down on the “side of life”.
Nobody is looking at this as an all-purpose, "nobody on life support will ever be allowed to die" situation. There are people who believe that Terri Schiavo's rights have not been adequately represented in court, and they want to make sure that isn't glossed over. Everything else you're saying is a leap beyond this situation.

[Bill?]

Huh? If a six-month-old boy died because his parents couldn't pay, how does that qualify as dying "under his law," a law which gave patient's more rights then they had before? The law you're citing was not about a patient's ability to pay their bills, it was about what rights a patient has when a hospital decides to deny life support. Is George Bush a hypocrite every time a poor person dies now?

in texas, yes. the little boy died because his parents couldnt pay the hospital. the bill bush signed into law in texas allowed th hospital to pull the plug.


Nobody is looking at this as an all-purpose, "nobody on life support will ever be allowed to die" situation. There are people who believe that Terri Schiavo's rights have not been adequately represented in court, and they want to make sure that isn't glossed over. Everything else you're saying is a leap beyond this situation.

so, fuck everyone else except Terri Schiavo because she got in the news. thats what I'm hearing. because you're nuts if you think other people aren't going to come looking for the same "help" her family got. should they denied?
Terri Schiavo's "rights" have gotten 7 years and 19 judges and she's still being used a political pawn.

[Kensington]

Huh? If a six-month-old boy died because his parents couldn't pay, how does that qualify as dying "under his law," a law which gave patient's more rights then they had before? The law you're citing was not about a patient's ability to pay their bills, it was about what rights a patient has when a hospital decides to deny life support. Is George Bush a hypocrite every time a poor person dies now?

in texas, yes. the little boy died because his parents couldnt pay the hospital. the bill bush signed into law in texas allowed th hospital to pull the plug.
Look, it's a horrible story, but you're still off the mark. Here's why the baby died:
Texas law allows hospitals can discontinue life sustaining care, even if patient family members disagree. A doctor's recommendation must be approved by a hospital's ethics committee, and the family must be given 10 days from written notice of the decision to try and locate another facility for the patient.
Prior to the law that you're using as a political cudgel to beat George W. Bush over the head, the hospital wouldn't even have had to give the family the ten days. It's sleight of hand, or misdirection, to suggest that he is responsible for the boy's death because he signed the law. He tried for more comprehensive legislation which would not have allowed this to happen, and he couldn't get the votes. The current legislation, at least, is an improvement, however flawed, and he deserves credit for getting even *that* much, not to be pilloried opportunistically.
so, fuck everyone else except Terri Schiavo because she got in the news. thats what I'm hearing. because you're nuts if you think other people aren't going to come looking for the same "help" her family got. should they denied?
I realize that's what you're hearing, and that's probably why this discussion isn't going to go anywhere. This is an issue that *should* be addressed for everyone, not just Terri Schiavo, but one thing at a time. At the moment, there isn't time to haggle -- the woman is already starving to death.

[sonnylarue]

Nonsense. You can generalize about Republicans all you like, but the fact that Bush has "rushed so fast" does not prove that he agrees with some callous douchebag's memo about capitalizing politically on Terri Schiavo.


Of course it does, you Kensington, are denying the reality of what this Tom DeLay led initiative is doing here.

How are some "right to life" zealots more qualified to make this decsion in mere days, , instead of the doctors and florida judicials, who have spent years on this specific case?

It's all politics, and it's being done in the slimiest fashion.

I wish more republicans , who don't agree with this move would stand up and represent the "contract with america" that they rode their revolution in with.

Remeber those ideas? Less federal intervention, states rights, etc?

This is an absolute abuse of the fedreal gov't getting involved in the private lives of citizens, in an unconstitutional way.

THESE ARE NOT THE MOVES OF TRADITIONAL CONSERVATIVES , and more real cons should stand up and object to these pandering moves to the christian cons.

[Balthazar]

I just wish congress cared as much about thousands of people dying in the Sudan as they do about one brain dead woman.

[Shane W]

I just wish congress cared as much about thousands of people dying in the Sudan as they do about one brain dead woman.

Why would you want congress to be more concerned with people they were not elected to represent?

[Balthazar]

I just wish congress cared as much about thousands of people dying in the Sudan as they do about one brain dead woman.

Why would you want congress to be more concerned with people they were not elected to represent?

Because the people they were elected to represent should care more about it.

[Shane W]

I just wish congress cared as much about thousands of people dying in the Sudan as they do about one brain dead woman.

Why would you want congress to be more concerned with people they were not elected to represent?

Because the people they were elected to represent should care more about it.

Well, that's pretty self-serving. What else should they care about because you say they should? :wink:

[SolidGoldBomb]

Nonsense. You can generalize about Republicans all you like, but the fact that Bush has "rushed so fast" does not prove that he agrees with some callous douchebag's memo about capitalizing politically on Terri Schiavo.


Of course it does, you Kensington, are denying the reality of what this Tom DeLay led initiative is doing here.

How are some "right to life" zealots more qualified to make this decsion in mere days, , instead of the doctors and florida judicials, who have spent years on this specific case?

It's all politics, and it's being done in the slimiest fashion.

I wish more republicans , who don't agree with this move would stand up and represent the "contract with america" that they rode their revolution in with.

Remeber those ideas? Less federal intervention, states rights, etc?

This is an absolute abuse of the fedreal gov't getting involved in the private lives of citizens, in an unconstitutional way.

THESE ARE NOT THE MOVES OF TRADITIONAL CONSERVATIVES , and more real cons should stand up and object to these pandering moves to the christian cons.

I agree totally buddy. I'd elaborate more but this issue has been beaten to death here for months. Fuck DeLay, Hassert and all the Republi-nazis in office who are using this to further their facist agenda.

P.S. - Kiss your rights goodbye.

[Kensington]

Nonsense. You can generalize about Republicans all you like, but the fact that Bush has "rushed so fast" does not prove that he agrees with some callous douchebag's memo about capitalizing politically on Terri Schiavo.

Of course it does, you Kensington, are denying the reality of what this Tom DeLay led initiative is doing here.
No, I'm just not deferring to the opinions of those with histories of hating Republicans regarding what motivates Republicans. I don't accept that there's some sort of nefarious agenda at work, just because Democrats say so.
How are some "right to life" zealots more qualified to make this decsion in mere days, , instead of the doctors and florida judicials, who have spent years on this specific case?
Anyone who raises the issue of whether or not Terri Schiavo's rights, based upon the issues raised over the last week, have been properly vetted is automatically a "right to life zealot"? This is why honest discussion is almost impossible nowadays.
I wish more republicans , who don't agree with this move would stand up and represent the "contract with america" that they rode their revolution in with.

Remeber those ideas? Less federal intervention, states rights, etc?
You mean *this* contract with America:
FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;

SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;

THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;

FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;

FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;

SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;

SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;

EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.
None of this is at odds with Congress intervening on behalf of Terri Schiavo. Article III grants Congress the right to determine the jurisdiction of the federal courts. That's all that has happened today. Congress is authorizing a federal court to ascertain whether Terri Schiavo's due process rights, and the right not to be subject to cruel and unusual punishment, has been protected. Not exactly a revolutionary action.

I wish some of you guys would get this worked up by the extremist overreach that was Roe v. Wade, where the Supreme Court took the issue of abortion away from the states. Now *that* was revolutionary.

[sonnylarue]

I just wish congress cared as much about thousands of people dying in the Sudan as they do about one brain dead woman.

Why would you want congress to be more concerned with people they were not elected to represent?

Because the people they were elected to represent should care more about it.

Well, that's pretty self-serving. What else should they care about because you say they should? :wink:

IT DOES point to the whole inconsistency to intervene in IRAQ, but not in the Sudan, which would require far less resources.

Afghanistan is different, because THEY attacked us.

[Balthazar]

I just wish congress cared as much about thousands of people dying in the Sudan as they do about one brain dead woman.

Why would you want congress to be more concerned with people they were not elected to represent?

Because the people they were elected to represent should care more about it.

Well, that's pretty self-serving. What else should they care about because you say they should? :wink:

I know. I'm selfish that way.

[Anad]

Yes, I know the difference. It just struck me as funny.

Just for the record, I'm for pulling the tube, but I wish there was a quicker way to do it instead of waiting it out.

I know you are smart and have a sense of humor :lol:

[Shane W]

I just wish congress cared as much about thousands of people dying in the Sudan as they do about one brain dead woman.

Why would you want congress to be more concerned with people they were not elected to represent?

Because the people they were elected to represent should care more about it.

Well, that's pretty self-serving. What else should they care about because you say they should? :wink:

IT DOES point to the whole inconsistency to intervene in IRAQ, but not in the Sudan, which would require far less resources.

Afghanistan is different, because THEY attacked us.

Not really when you look at the overall terrorist plan. The Sudan is not part of the concern region, where Iraq is. I KNOW IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. But to put your foot down and say this has nothing to do with the overall war against terror is ridiculous.

Any time I mention this, it get's ignored, because it requires the anti-iraq war person top think outside of "I hate Bush".

Now, let's get back on topic here, this argument has been rehashed countless times.

[Shane W]

I just wish congress cared as much about thousands of people dying in the Sudan as they do about one brain dead woman.

Why would you want congress to be more concerned with people they were not elected to represent?

Because the people they were elected to represent should care more about it.

Well, that's pretty self-serving. What else should they care about because you say they should? :wink:

I know. I'm selfish that way.

I'm just busting you balls man.. It's all good.

[Thudpucker]

It really isn't the Federal Governments place to interviene here. This is a very scarry precedent.

[SolidGoldBomb]

I wish some of you guys would get this worked up by the extremist overreach that was Roe v. Wade, where the Supreme Court took the issue of abortion away from the states. Now *that* was revolutionary.

Yea its fucking revolutionary how the united states now owns our bodies, and will dictate what we can or cant do to ourselves. Thats the whole point of this case IMO, is to slowly chip away at Roe V Wade and repeal it soon, so you crazy christian bastards can be happy. So because of people like you the government will soon be able to tell me that I don't have the right to refuse to be microchipped.

[Bill?]

Look, it's a horrible story, but you're still off the mark. Here's why the baby died:
Texas law allows hospitals can discontinue life sustaining care, even if patient family members disagree. A doctor's recommendation must be approved by a hospital's ethics committee, and the family must be given 10 days from written notice of the decision to try and locate another facility for the patient.

right. except the plug was pulled because the family couldnt pay. so they couldnt very well afford to move to another facility. they wanted the child to be kept alive. now the baby is dead.


Prior to the law that you're using as a political cudgel to beat George W. Bush over the head, the hospital wouldn't even have had to give the family the ten days. It's sleight of hand, or misdirection, to suggest that he is responsible for the boy's death because he signed the law. He tried for more comprehensive legislation which would not have allowed this to happen, and he couldn't get the votes. The current legislation, at least, is an improvement, however flawed, and he deserves credit for getting even *that* much, not to be pilloried opportunistically.
.

many staes have laws that dont allow for the hospital to pull the plug. ever. its never ever up to them. bush signed a law that allows hospitals to save costs by deciding. he could have supported a different bill, but he didnt.


I realize that's what you're hearing, and that's probably why this discussion isn't going to go anywhere. This is an issue that *should* be addressed for everyone, not just Terri Schiavo, but one thing at a time. At the moment, there isn't time to haggle -- the woman is already starving to death.

Terri Schiavo is getting what she wanted. what the courts have ruled time and time again she wanted. others are going to want the same treatment, but arent going to get it because they weren't lucky enough to have their case used as political fodder.

[sonnylarue]

Your right Kensington, I mispsoke. The Contract With America has no wording to describe the issue of state's rights vs Federal powers, however...

Anyone who raises the issue of whether or not Terri Schiavo's rights, based upon the issues raised over the last week, have been properly vetted is automatically a "right to life zealot"? This is why honest discussion is almost impossible nowadays.

Kind of like yourself describing stopping Terry Shivo's feeding tube as MURDER?

This woman has been brain dead for 15 years. This is a mercy killing, not a murder.

[Shane W]

Your right Kensington, I mispsoke. The Contract With America has no wording to describe the issue of state's rights vs Federal powers, however...

Anyone who raises the issue of whether or not Terri Schiavo's rights, based upon the issues raised over the last week, have been properly vetted is automatically a "right to life zealot"? This is why honest discussion is almost impossible nowadays.

Kind of like yourself describing stopping Terry Shivo's feeding tube as MURDER?

This woman has been brain dead for 15 years. This is a mercy killing, not a murder.

If it's letting her die naturally, why use the word "killing"?

[Kensington]

I wish some of you guys would get this worked up by the extremist overreach that was Roe v. Wade, where the Supreme Court took the issue of abortion away from the states. Now *that* was revolutionary.

Yea its fucking revolutionary how the united states now owns our bodies, and will dictate what we can or cant do to ourselves. Thats the whole point of this case IMO, is to slowly chip away at Roe V Wade and repeal it soon, so you crazy christian bastards can be happy. So because of people like you the government will soon be able to tell me that I don't have the right to refuse to be microchipped.
Is this a good time to point out that, after this I won't respond to anyone who posts like this? The reasonable, polite stuff is great, and many of you have been interesting, but *this* is ridiculous.

By the way, I'm not a Christian. Try to absorb *that* and still maintain your paranoid, hysterical bigotry. You don't have to be a Christian to think that starving Terri Schiavo to death is a horrible thing.

[Kensington]

Kind of like yourself describing stopping Terry Shivo's feeding tube as MURDER?
Eh? Where did I do that? "Killing" is not the same as "murdering." That doesn't make "killing" a good thing, but nowhere in this discussion am I equating the two. "Killing" her is bad enough. I just think it's important to say that what is happening is more severe, more pointed, than the euphemistic "allowing her to die" which is getting bandied about quite a bit and lets the participants off the hook. I'm not even endowing Michael Schiavo with the more unfortunately conspiratorial motivations that are also circulating. But this *is* a killing, in a way that is more pungent than merely turning off a ventilator, and if that makes anyone uncomfortable, I have no problem with that.

[Thudpucker]

Your right Kensington, I mispsoke. The Contract With America has no wording to describe the issue of state's rights vs Federal powers, however...

Anyone who raises the issue of whether or not Terri Schiavo's rights, based upon the issues raised over the last week, have been properly vetted is automatically a "right to life zealot"? This is why honest discussion is almost impossible nowadays.

Kind of like yourself describing stopping Terry Shivo's feeding tube as MURDER?

This woman has been brain dead for 15 years. This is a mercy killing, not a murder.

If it's letting her die naturally, why use the word "killing"?

Because it is killing.

But sometimes that is the most mercifull thing to do.

[SolidGoldBomb]

By the way, I'm not a Christian. Try to absorb *that* and still maintain your paranoid, hysterical bigotry. You don't have to be a Christian to think that starving Terri Schiavo to death is a horrible thing.

Ive had this discussion at least 100 times, and probably like 5 today so I get frustrated easily about this topic, please excuse my general hatred I directed towards you.

The woman doesn't feel pain. Her brain has atrophied to the size of a walnut, and her cranium is filled with spinal fluid. She has NO CHANCE of recovery. She will never be able to have another thought, she is already dead to the world. Why cant she just get her wish and die? What is so horrible about that?

The only reason for opposition is because the bible says that suicide is a sin and your soul is sent to hell for it (if you believe that). If theres another reason other than an archaic religious belief i'd like to hear it.

[Kensington]

right. except the plug was pulled because the family couldnt pay. so they couldnt very well afford to move to another facility. they wanted the child to be kept alive. now the baby is dead.
That makes George W. Bush a hypocrite how, exactly? We're just going in circles.
many staes have laws that dont allow for the hospital to pull the plug. ever. its never ever up to them. bush signed a law that allows hospitals to save costs by deciding. he could have supported a different bill, but he didnt.
One more time: before Bush even got there Texas law allowed hospitals to do this, even more easily then than it can now. Bush tried to change that. He tried to accomplish the absolutist position you (and I) advocate. He didn't have the votes. The current law was the best he could do, and it *is* an improvement. He wasn't a one man legislature.
Terri Schiavo is getting what she wanted. what the courts have ruled time and time again she wanted. others are going to want the same treatment, but arent going to get it because they weren't lucky enough to have their case used as political fodder.
Look, you *may* be right about Terri Schiavo's desires or not. I don't know. I do find the objections raised over the weekend compelling, though, namely that the Florida court should not have allowed the same attorney to represent both Michael *and* Terri Schiavo since their interests were at odds. Maybe this time we'll get a more comprehensive look at everyone's interests. I can't respond to the rest of what you're saying because I don't know. You assume that all of these other hypothetical people aren't going to get any help. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. In any event, so what? That doesn't mean that Terri Schiavo *shouldn't* get any special attention.

[Thudpucker]

By the way, I'm not a Christian. Try to absorb *that* and still maintain your paranoid, hysterical bigotry. You don't have to be a Christian to think that starving Terri Schiavo to death is a horrible thing.
[/quote]

I am a Christian, and I think killing her is the right thing to do.

Wrap your head around that one :wink:

[Shane W]

By the way, I'm not a Christian. Try to absorb *that* and still maintain your paranoid, hysterical bigotry. You don't have to be a Christian to think that starving Terri Schiavo to death is a horrible thing.


I am a Christian, and I think killing her is the right thing to do.

Wrap your head around that one :wink:[/quote]

How can you be a Christian AND a hippie? That one's even tougher to figure out.

[Taxman]

right. except the plug was pulled because the family couldnt pay. so they couldnt very well afford to move to another facility. they wanted the child to be kept alive. now the baby is dead.
That makes George W. Bush a hypocrite how, exactly? We're just going in circles.


Had I only the inclination to answer this one.

[Thudpucker]

By the way, I'm not a Christian. Try to absorb *that* and still maintain your paranoid, hysterical bigotry. You don't have to be a Christian to think that starving Terri Schiavo to death is a horrible thing.


I am a Christian, and I think killing her is the right thing to do.

Wrap your head around that one :wink:

How can you be a Christian AND a hippie? That one's even tougher to figure out.[/quote]

Jesus was a Hippie.

[Kensington]

The woman doesn't feel pain. Her brain has atrophied to the size of a walnut, and her cranium is filled with spinal fluid. She has NO CHANCE of recovery. She will never be able to have another thought, she is already dead to the world.
You are putting all of these suppositions forward as facts. There are people, doctors, not just religious zealots, who have differing opinions. There's a recording of her responding to her father floating around on the Internet (I can't find a link right now, though). She doesn't sound like a dead person to me.
The only reason for opposition is because the bible says that suicide is a sin and your soul is sent to hell for it (if you believe that). If theres another reason other than an archaic religious belief i'd like to hear it.
Again, I am not a Christian, nor am I thumping a Bible. You need to consider that your understanding of what motivates the objections is a little narrow. I just don't think it's right for a man to starve his wife to death and support the current actions aimed at making sure she isn't being treated poorly. I know this has been in court before now. There are still unaddressed issues, and I'm glad that they might have a chance to be aired out. Maybe she ends up starving to death anyway, but there's no hurry.

[Shane W]

By the way, I'm not a Christian. Try to absorb *that* and still maintain your paranoid, hysterical bigotry. You don't have to be a Christian to think that starving Terri Schiavo to death is a horrible thing.


I am a Christian, and I think killing her is the right thing to do.

Wrap your head around that one :wink:

How can you be a Christian AND a hippie? That one's even tougher to figure out.

Jesus was a Hippie.[/quote]

But he was jewish.

[Kensington]

By the way, I'm not a Christian. Try to absorb *that* and still maintain your paranoid, hysterical bigotry. You don't have to be a Christian to think that starving Terri Schiavo to death is a horrible thing.
I am a Christian, and I think killing her is the right thing to do.

Wrap your head around that one :wink:
That's between you and :twisted:, Mr. gay doll collector... :P

[Thudpucker]

By the way, I'm not a Christian. Try to absorb *that* and still maintain your paranoid, hysterical bigotry. You don't have to be a Christian to think that starving Terri Schiavo to death is a horrible thing.


I am a Christian, and I think killing her is the right thing to do.

Wrap your head around that one :wink:

How can you be a Christian AND a hippie? That one's even tougher to figure out.

Jesus was a Hippie.

But he was jewish.[/quote]

Jews can be hippies too. All the Apostles were (except maybe Judas).

[Taxman]

Again, I am not a Christian, nor am I thumping a Bible. You need to consider that your understanding of what motivates the objections is a little narrow. I just don't think it's right for a man to starve his wife to death and support the current actions aimed at making sure she isn't being treated poorly. I know this has been in court before now. There are still unaddressed issues, and I'm glad that they might have a chance to be aired out. Maybe she ends up starving to death anyway, but there's no hurry.

Kensington, do we at least agree that eveyone should have a living will?

[Shane W]

By the way, I'm not a Christian. Try to absorb *that* and still maintain your paranoid, hysterical bigotry. You don't have to be a Christian to think that starving Terri Schiavo to death is a horrible thing.


I am a Christian, and I think killing her is the right thing to do.

Wrap your head around that one :wink:

How can you be a Christian AND a hippie? That one's even tougher to figure out.

Jesus was a Hippie.

But he was jewish.

Jews can be hippies too. All the Apostles were (except maybe Judas).[/quote]

I'm just saying it isn't as hard to imagine a jew being a hippie as it is a christian.

[Thudpucker]

By the way, I'm not a Christian. Try to absorb *that* and still maintain your paranoid, hysterical bigotry. You don't have to be a Christian to think that starving Terri Schiavo to death is a horrible thing.
I am a Christian, and I think killing her is the right thing to do.

Wrap your head around that one :wink:
That's between you and :twisted:, Mr. gay doll collector... :P

:shifty: I did't actually buy one, I just kind of like it.

[Thudpucker]

By the way, I'm not a Christian. Try to absorb *that* and still maintain your paranoid, hysterical bigotry. You don't have to be a Christian to think that starving Terri Schiavo to death is a horrible thing.


I am a Christian, and I think killing her is the right thing to do.

Wrap your head around that one :wink:

How can you be a Christian AND a hippie? That one's even tougher to figure out.

Jesus was a Hippie.

But he was jewish.

Jews can be hippies too. All the Apostles were (except maybe Judas).

I'm just saying it isn't as hard to imagine a jew being a hippie as it is a christian.[/quote]

Yea, that's kind of sad.

But them I'm Buddist too, it all kind of works together for me.

[Shane W]

Again, I am not a Christian, nor am I thumping a Bible. You need to consider that your understanding of what motivates the objections is a little narrow. I just don't think it's right for a man to starve his wife to death and support the current actions aimed at making sure she isn't being treated poorly. I know this has been in court before now. There are still unaddressed issues, and I'm glad that they might have a chance to be aired out. Maybe she ends up starving to death anyway, but there's no hurry.

Kensington, do we at least agree that eveyone should have a living will?

This is where my line is.. Living will? No problem at all.. Word of mouth? a little hazy.

[(akaRyanHoffman)]

Anyone else find it odd that it took months/years to form a decision on whether to even form a 9/11 committee...

...or how it took months/years to get body armor for our troops in Iraq (and elsewhere--and some still don't have any....)

but when it comes to 'smaller' matters like Steroids in baseball, a federal gay marriage ammendment, and this case here.... everything has to be done right away...?

Congress is supposed to recess for two weeks, but feel this issue is important enough to come back on monday for....

if only they were this dedicated for every issue, not just ones that involve 'right to life' cases, gay cases, or drug cases.

(or is that just the cynic in me talking? )


No no...


Politicians are great with distracting people with non-issues.

[Kensington]

Kensington, do we at least agree that eveyone should have a living will?
I dunno; does it say so in the BIBLE??? :twisted:

:wink: Yeah, of course I agree. We wouldn't even be having this debate if Terri Schiavo had prepared one... I hope that all future living wills address specifically the possibility of starvation, though...

[sonnylarue]

Kensington, do we at least agree that eveyone should have a living will?
I dunno; does it say so in the BIBLE??? :twisted:

:wink: Yeah, of course I agree. We wouldn't even be having this debate if Terri Schiavo had prepared one... I hope that all future living wills address specifically the possibility of starvation, though...

I agree too , but even living wills can be contested , so they truly aren't the final word on a person's last wishes on how to deal with this touchy PERSONAL subject.