Political Crossfire Forums

[Praetorian]

I don't think so. The article I read when 00timh originally posted this subject said it was mysterious circumstances. But I just saw Hanner post that it was stroke related or something in the Republican HQ discussion, but I don't know where he got that from.

Quote: It's the ONLY option he has to fulfill his fife's wishes.
Really? The only way to allow someone to pass is to starve her to death? If that's the case, maybe you should be busy advocating a more humane way.

Quote: Seems like God himself has a much better attitude toward death than his followers.
I'm glad you know exactly what God wants.

Quote: As for how much this man loves his wife, you don't have a clue as to how he feels toward her. Maybe he is a Christian, and more of a Christian than you people I might add. His beliefs may dictate that when you die you go to meet God. What these meddlers are doing is preventing that from happening.
No, I don't know this man. I wish I had the facilities to observe him first hand. But I don't, so I am working with the forensic training I have and looking at the facts that are available to me. I don't understand in the least why you are choosing to invoke God and Christianity into this discussion about who he is.

[Scribbler1]

Praetorian wrote: Quote: It's the ONLY option he has to fulfill his fife's wishes.
Really? The only way to allow someone to pass is to starve her to death? If that's the case, maybe you should be busy advocating a more humane way.
Like you would prefer a different way to allow her to die? I doubt it.

Quote: Seems like God himself has a much better attitude toward death than his followers.
Quote: I'm glad you know exactly what God wants.
I never said that, but your side sure acts that way.

Quote: As for how much this man loves his wife, you don't have a clue as to how he feels toward her. Maybe he is a Christian, and more of a Christian than you people I might add. His beliefs may dictate that when you die you go to meet God. What these meddlers are doing is preventing that from happening.
Quote: No, I don't know this man. I wish I had the facilities to observe him first hand. But I don't, so I am working with the forensic training I have and looking at the facts that are available to me.
What forensic training do you need to allow a man to use his power as legal guardian? This would have been done with long ago if do-gooders didn't keep meddling.

Quote: I don't understand in the least why you are choosing to invoke God and Christianity into this discussion about who he is.
Because I need to know. On the one hand I am told that when you die it is God taking you home. In this case the woman had a heart attack and suffered irreversible brain damage. She was uin a vegetative state and would die but the parents repeatedly interfered and dragged out the case. She WOULD have been with God is people had butted out. I just want an explanation to this contradiction.

[Praetorian]

Scribbler1 wrote: Praetorian wrote: Quote: It's the ONLY option he has to fulfill his fife's wishes.
Really? The only way to allow someone to pass is to starve her to death? If that's the case, maybe you should be busy advocating a more humane way.
Like you would prefer a different way to allow her to die? I doubt it.
I'm glad you know me so well. :roll:
Actually I would. If the position was that she indeed is not getting better and they could let her pass without starving her, I might be arguing the opposite of what I am arguing now.

Quote: Quote: Seems like God himself has a much better attitude toward death than his followers.
Quote: I'm glad you know exactly what God wants.
I never said that, but your side sure acts that way.
My side? Who is "my side"? Republicans? This isn't about politics for me, so I'd appreciate it if you address me, and not my political inclinations.
Quote:
Quote: As for how much this man loves his wife, you don't have a clue as to how he feels toward her. Maybe he is a Christian, and more of a Christian than you people I might add. His beliefs may dictate that when you die you go to meet God. What these meddlers are doing is preventing that from happening.
Quote: No, I don't know this man. I wish I had the facilities to observe him first hand. But I don't, so I am working with the forensic training I have and looking at the facts that are available to me.
What forensic training do you need to allow a man to use his power as legal guardian? This would have been done with long ago if do-gooders didn't keep meddling.
Okay, to make it simple for you, go watch a couple of episodes of CSI. Or go read a forensics book. Maybe then you will slightly understand my inability to believe this man is a saint.

Quote: Quote: I don't understand in the least why you are choosing to invoke God and Christianity into this discussion about who he is.
Because I need to know. On the one hand I am told that when you die it is God taking you home. In this case the woman had a heart attack and suffered irreversible brain damage. She was uin a vegetative state and would die but the parents repeatedly interfered and dragged out the case. She WOULD have been with God is people had butted out. I just want an explanation to this contradiction.
How do you know that this isn't what God wanted? How do you know that he isn't using her in many different hypothetical ways. You don't. I believe that God gives us the ability to make the scientific advances that we have.
My nephew caught pneumonia when he was 3. Should I not have let humans interfere with his well being and let nature take its course? Wait...I would be arrested for abuse and neglect...
Heck, if you let a dog's medical issues go untreated you get arrested for neglect.

[Scribbler1]

Praetorian wrote: Scribbler1 wrote: Praetorian wrote: Quote: It's the ONLY option he has to fulfill his fife's wishes.
Really? The only way to allow someone to pass is to starve her to death? If that's the case, maybe you should be busy advocating a more humane way.
Like you would prefer a different way to allow her to die? I doubt it.
I'm glad you know me so well. :roll:
Actually I would. If the position was that she indeed is not getting better and they could let her pass without starving her, I might be arguing the opposite of what I am arguing now.
I don't know you at all. But your posts indicate if you are against a feeding tube being removed you are certainly not going to accept other methods of allowing this woman to die. But let's try one. How about an overdose of pain killer?

Quote: Quote: Seems like God himself has a much better attitude toward death than his followers.
Quote: I'm glad you know exactly what God wants.
I never said that, but your side sure acts that way.
Quote: My side? Who is "my side"? Republicans? This isn't about politics for me, so I'd appreciate it if you address me, and not my political inclinations.

You must be on the Olympic conclusion jumping team. If you'd like to check, you'll see I have not mentioned Republicans OR Democrats.
How about "your side" as in removing the tube/keeping it in? Your side of course is for keeping it in.


Quote: As for how much this man loves his wife, you don't have a clue as to how he feels toward her. Maybe he is a Christian, and more of a Christian than you people I might add. His beliefs may dictate that when you die you go to meet God. What these meddlers are doing is preventing that from happening.

Quote: No, I don't know this man. I wish I had the facilities to observe him first hand. But I don't, so I am working with the forensic training I have and looking at the facts that are available to me.

Quote: What forensic training do you need to allow a man to use his power as legal guardian? This would have been done with long ago if do-gooders didn't keep meddling.
Quote: Okay, to make it simple for you, go watch a couple of episodes of CSI. Or go read a forensics book. Maybe then you will slightly understand my inability to believe this man is a saint.
Are you implying he had something to do with her initial heart attack? Please explain what he did and how he did it?
And I have watched a LOT of CSI Miami and I like the show. However, unless you have access to any evidence these doctors did not, your opinion is no more important than mine, regardless of this training you keep mentioning.
It's like people saying they know exactly what this woman's condition is. Even if they are MDs their opinions are worthless unless they have actually examined her.

Quote: I believe that God gives us the ability to make the scientific advances that we have.
My nephew caught pneumonia when he was 3. Should I not have let humans interfere with his well being and let nature take its course? Wait...I would be arrested for abuse and neglect...
Heck, if you let a dog's medical issues go untreated you get arrested for neglect.
Sure you might be arrested for neglect. Was the child in a primitive vegetative state. Of course not. That's a straw man. This is why it is impossible to reason with people on your side. All throughout these threads people keep grabbing a lot of immaterial and unrelated arguments to prove their point. You disagree with me, fine. That's what debate is about. But don't give me your nephew's respiratory problem as a related situation to prove your point and don't tell me to watch a TV show. Lay out your case and your evidence as I have mine (several times) after that we can debate.
Maybe in another thread though.

[no_hope]

Lennox wrote: No matter how you feel about this, taking away food and water is wrong. We don't do that to animals in this country.

True. Perhaps that's why the right-to-lifers should back off of letting their religion run everybody else's lives and allow people the same painless deaths they allow convicted murderers. Perhaps if people had an option other than dying like this, we wouldn't have to reckon with whether or not to let her die in such an awful way. In the interim, if it is any comfort to you, most medical experts have said that she does not feel pain.

In the next week, I will write my living will and request a merciful lethal injection under certain circumstances. I wonder if, when the time comes, anyone will care what I wanted.

[Praetorian]

I am going to sum it up quickly because I have an English paper due tomorrow.

I assumed you meant Republican because when one says "your side" on a political board, it is natural to assume it is pertaining to political inclination. My apologies if I mis-read.

CSI Miami s*cks, original CSI is the shiznit.

All of my stuff is speculation as is yours. Our speculations just differ. We know nothing more than what the media feeds us.

Examples are the key to understanding. I gave you an example.

Gotta go run and write an essay on Dante, thanks for the discussion.

[Zangoose]

earthmother wrote: :cry: To those of you who think it's ok to kill surplus people who are extremely sick or injured: Just in case you didn't know, starving any living being to death is cruel. No matter what the circumstances. If it is acceptable to kill people like Terry S. then why not be honest about it. Just pull the plug and walk away? What a supreme copout! Lethal injection perhaps? This is how they put animals to sleep for petes sake! Doesn't a human at least have the right to be treated as well as your dog? This ain't about political affilliation, friends. This is about right and wrong. Trouble is, people seem to be getting farther and farther away from the knowledge of right and wrong. It's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact. Truth don't change. Right and wrong don't change. This idea of legally starving to death folks who are unwanted by a small handfull of particularly small minded baboons, just goes to show what sort of legal system we're having forced upon us. Terry's husband, if he gets his way in the end, will have to live with the consequences of his actions for the rest of his life, and I sure wouldn't want to be in his shoes. Karma is real and he's got some REAL BAD coming.

Its a sad day for her family. But the truth is that she have been in this state for 15 YEARS!!!!!!!! Its more cruel to live her in this state. Plus the husband wants to move on but he can't. Her wishes was to pull the plug.(people don't want to respect that.) Keeping her alive is more of a sick joke than ending her sickness. The government shouldn't get involed in this.

[Praetorian]

Why can't he move on? He already has.

[PrinceJunius]

I think it's ridiculous how Congress is getting all involved in this. This is a personal issue for the Schiavo family, and it's ultimately their decision when it comes to medical issues surrounding Terry. What her husband is doing is not illegal, and yet Congress is passing bills as if the man committed some kind of crime.

I thought Republicans were for small government. And yet, government has gotten so huge that a familes' medical decisions are being interfered with. If they're going to interfere like that, than they might as well give us universal healthcare. If not, they can keep their noses out of other people's problems and go find some other trivial thing to worry about.

And if you want to talk about hypocrisy, when he was governor, President Bush signed a Texas law called the Texas Futile Care Law. Basically, the law states that hospitals have the right to withdraw life support if the patient can't pay and there was no hope of survival. Just recently, the law was used to withdraw life support from a baby against his mother's wishes. And yet, Bush is cutting his vacation in Crawford short to go sign a bill to have the feeding tube put back. I'm telling you, it doesn't get any more sickening than that. Way to turn a woman's tragedy into a political gain for you and your party, Bush.

[happynegative]

Personally I think the courts decision is a mockery. Congress directly ordered for the feeding tube to remain. But the courts ignored it. Our government is based on checks and balances. Congress has the right and the duty to check the judicial system. So the fact that they directly disobeyed is just infuriating.

[Scribbler1]

happynegative wrote: Personally I think the courts decision is a mockery. Congress directly ordered for the feeding tube to remain. But the courts ignored it. Our government is based on checks and balances. Congress has the right and the duty to check the judicial system. So the fact that they directly disobeyed is just infuriating.
Checks and balances means the courts are charged with "checking"the Congress too. Your implication is that anything Congress does can't be interfered with by the courts. "Check"your facts.

[happynegative]

Scribbler1 wrote: happynegative wrote: Personally I think the courts decision is a mockery. Congress directly ordered for the feeding tube to remain. But the courts ignored it. Our government is based on checks and balances. Congress has the right and the duty to check the judicial system. So the fact that they directly disobeyed is just infuriating.
Checks and balances means the courts are charged with "checking"the Congress too. Your implication is that anything Congress does can't be interfered with by the courts. "Check"your facts.

I know that but in this case Congress was checking the courts, but the courts ignored Congress.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

I don't understand this issue to be honest. This is a private issue for the Schiavo family. It's becoming ridiculous how everyone is getting involved in this issue from around the world.

[Scribbler1]

happynegative wrote: Scribbler1 wrote: happynegative wrote: Personally I think the courts decision is a mockery. Congress directly ordered for the feeding tube to remain. But the courts ignored it. Our government is based on checks and balances. Congress has the right and the duty to check the judicial system. So the fact that they directly disobeyed is just infuriating.
Checks and balances means the courts are charged with "checking"the Congress too. Your implication is that anything Congress does can't be interfered with by the courts. "Check"your facts.

I know that but in this case Congress was checking the courts, but the courts ignored Congress.
Congress wasn't "checking" SQUAT. They passed the bill allowing it to be decided by the federal court which would supercede the state court ruling. It was supposed to do nothing more than allow the parents a vistory. The court didn't decide what you wanted them to.

[GreyThor]

How much is being spent on her with Medicade? Or was it Medicare... I think it was Medicade that's servicing the expenses on her. If she has no hope to recover, take out the feeding tube. She deserves to die. Her state is worse than death. At least she'll be in a better place.

[Izquierda]

To those of you who think it's ok to kill surplus people who are extremely sick or injured: Just in case you didn't know, starving any living being to death is cruel. No matter what the circumstances

---------

Perhaps you can allow that the situation might be a tad more complex than you suggest. Other than in the last couple decades perhaps, the Terri Schiavos of human history would have just died no matter how hard others tried. She's been kept alive artificially.

So it's a question of withdrawing the means that now keep her alive in spite of the natural course of things. That may not be the same as active killing.

Of course there's question of whether Terri would have wanted to be kept alive artificially. Perhaps reasonable people may not agree on whether they, personally, would want to be kept alive artificially. If indeed Terri did not want, it would not be accurate to characterize this as "killing" anymore than it's a "killing" when someone jumps in front of a train.

Not everything's in black and white.

[Scribbler1]

Huh?

"Not everything's in black and white.

Not everything is black and white.

It's therefore"

What is this, a serial? Stay tuned for next week's episode, where Izquierda tells us "it's therefore" WHAT? :roll:

[angusrae]

Scribbler1 wrote: Huh?

"Not everything's in black and white.

Not everything is black and white.

It's therefore"

What is this, a serial? Stay tuned for next week's episode, where Izquierda tells us "it's therefore" WHAT? :roll: Possible what Izquierda meant to say was

Not everything is black or white but has shades of Grey.

[Izquierda]

I can't keep you in suspense (though that's evidently not so hard to do):

Therefore not the case that "starving any living being to death is cruel. No matter what the circumstances."

[Scribbler1]

Oh. OK. Right.