# Terry Schiavo - RIP



## ChileMass (Mar 31, 2005)

Terry Schiavo just passed away at age 41.  What's your opinion on discontinuing medical support for her?


----------



## Greg (Mar 31, 2005)

Each case is different. My feeling is she should have had a better evaluation before pulling the feeding tube. There is a lot of evidence that she could've made some progress with proper therapy. Also, the parents should have had more say in what happens. Apparently, Michael Schiavo didn't even let them into her room as she died. I can't imagine having to watch my daughter die of dehydration due to some whacked-out jackass son-in-law's wishes. Just an unfortunate situation all across the board.


----------



## Vortex (Mar 31, 2005)

I chose other.  I'm not part of the family.  My opinion does not matter on this one.  In general this seemed to have gone to far for me.  I wish people would make clear their intentions while they are alive.  A clear will or living will.  I can understand someone on life support having the plug pulled ( sounds horrible), I think this went to far.
RIP


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 31, 2005)

if you seperate the emotional content, its a pretty disturbng case. Medical decisions are, or were, private matters. The Florida courts got involved, which is proper, but then so did Jeb adn the Florida Legislature. That's not good. Then the Federal Government got in the act- Congress had no place there, and the Supreme Court absolutely had no business hearing the case, particularly after the federal Appeals Court had ruled, even though it never should have gotten there, either.
End result- the Government now has precedent to get even more involved in your personal affairs. I thought the Republicans were the party of smaller, responsible government. Not that the circus wouldn't have happened no matter who was in power, but 10-15 years ago the GOP would have squelched it double quick.


----------



## loafer89 (Mar 31, 2005)

Speaking from experience, I can say that it is a good idea to have your wishes written down if the same fate should ever befall any of us. My wife's mother died of MS in February of 1997, and she was in really bad shape at the end and not able to make any decisions on her own. My wife made sure that her mother had a DNR in writing, as the nursing home wanted to keep her alive on a respirator, something her mother did NOT want.

My mother also past away in August of 2003 from an illness similar to MS that she had been fighting for nearly 30 years. My mother had a tracheotomy done against her own will by my father and this kept her alive for another 5 years afterwards. Luckily my mother past away easily on her own free will after she lost the will to live any longer.

In both cases there was no chance for improvement, just a prolongation of misery and helplessness. I do disagree with the way that Terri Schiavo life was ended though, as starving someone to death seems inhumane to me, but what other options are legally available??


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 31, 2005)

There are no other options, loafer89. Another issue that's being overshadowed by the emotional bits. Dr Kevorkian is in jail.


----------



## madman (Mar 31, 2005)

We all confide things to our lovers [spouce] that we dont tell our families . My wife and I are both active people and both have stated we want no extreem measures taken in a situation like this. She has never told her family because of what we both consiter extreme religious views. We paint Mike Schivao as a monster, he worked side by side with the parents for 7 yrs. His only fault was desiding to end it before his inlaws were ready. If I know my inlaws the plug would never get pulled no matter my wifes wishes. Get it in writing ,keep the govt out of it,hope you never get into this situation.


----------



## dmc (Mar 31, 2005)

Terri Schindler Schiavo
Born December 3rd, 1963
Departed Februrary 25, 1990
At Peace March 31, 2005


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 31, 2005)

Absolutely, dmc. I agree 100%


----------



## riverc0il (Mar 31, 2005)

who cares about terry schiavo, what this entire ordeal was all about wasn't a human life unless you were a family or a friend.  what this media circus boiled down to was government power and congress over stepping it's bounds.  let's not forget how quickly the president jumped to sign a bill but waited days after the recent school shooting to make a statement about that incident.  terry schiavo's image, the husband, and the moter and father were used as pawns by various factions fighting for legal precident vs. a human life.  it was extremely disturbing watching this personal family matter that has long since been settled justly and legally come to the national spot light and command such attention.

regardless of your feelings on whether what was done was right or not, you just gotta feel disturbed about how the government interferred with the legal proceedings.

most people that degrade into a permanent vegitative state never come out of it unless it's within the first few years.  fighting for human life when there is a desire on the part of said human to life and thrive is one thing.  fighting for a human that doesn't want to be fought for, wanted the plug pulled, and legally was entitled to what they want is quite the other.  if i am ever in the same position, someone stick a fork in me before the media could grab onto the case.  a little dignity in death isn't such a bad thing.

my other objection is why not use a lethal injection instead of "pulling a tube" and watching a body desolve itself.  we "humanely" put down animals and death row inmates but we do not offer a humane death for terminal illness.

okay, back to skiing before this thread turns into a medical ethics discussion.   just watch out for your government is the most important thing to take out of this whole thing.


----------



## pedxing (Apr 2, 2005)

Looking at some of the court opinions and the evidence reviewed, it seems like there was an excruciatingly thorough review of the case before Jeb Bush got involved.  It's easy for highly opinionated people to confuse not being heard with not being agreed with, but it is clear that the parent's and their allies were heard quite clearly.

No amount of therapy can create brain tissue where there is now fluid.  Stem cell research holds some promise for providing a means of regenerating brain tissue - but we are a very long way away from that point at this time.

It is stunning that those who profess deep faith in God and in Heaven would insist on artificially maintaining a prolonged vegetative state in a person.  What ever happened to "let go and let God?"

I've made my wishes clear - please deliver me from those who would keep me in such a state for decades.

The Bush brothers have given us a glimpse of what a theocratic state might look like, where religious doctrine dictates intrusion into private individual matters.

How many lives could have been saved if those who mobilized to back Terry Schiavo's parents had tried to save people who had lives that were endangered?


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 3, 2005)

> How many lives could have been saved if those who mobilized to back Terry Schiavo's parents had tried to save people who had lives that were endangered?


this is a great point.  all your points were great, but this one really stands out.  if they put half as much money, mobilization, and media coverage they did into TS into say people starving to death on the streets of america or into say people dieing from lack of medical insurunace, amazing things could be happening.


----------



## 57stevey (Apr 3, 2005)

FWIW, I think it's a tremendous credit to the community on this board that topics like this can be discussed here in a serious and thoughtful manner.


----------



## ChileMass (Apr 3, 2005)

SUV Steve said:
			
		

> FWIW, I think it's a tremendous credit to the community on this board that topics like this can be discussed here in a serious and thoughtful manner.




Thanks.  All of the AZ folks try to keep it civil.  We are able to have discussions on these kinds of controversial topics regularly, and they almost never get heated.  As you say, it's a credit to our participants.....


----------



## smitty77 (Apr 4, 2005)

riverc0il said:
			
		

> my other objection is why not use a lethal injection instead of "pulling a tube" and watching a body desolve itself.  we "humanely" put down animals and death row inmates but we do not offer a humane death for terminal illness.



I'll second that!  All some of these people want is the sweet release from a life of agony, and yet we deny them.  In Terry's case, it would have been the more "humane" way of letting her pass, if it was indeed her wish to do so.  I tend to believe the husband.  I don't know if I could have fought as hard as he did for my wife's wishes for 7 years.

Smitty


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 4, 2005)

> I don't know if I could have fought as hard as he did for my wife's wishes for 7 years.


i suspect he was also fighting to ease his own pain.  i would have done the same thing.  a co-worker was recently involved in a long drawn out worsening of a parent in late age.  it was incredibly draining on both her and her husband being put through an emotional wringer nearly everyday for an entire year before the parent passed away (the parent actually said she wanted to die at one point, how aweful can that be on someone?).


----------



## Stephen (Apr 5, 2005)

> i suspect he was also fighting to ease his own pain.



That would be the pain of having a wife who is still living while he had 2 children with another woman?

This was a choice of convenience, nothing more.

-Stephen


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 5, 2005)

Stephen- I see your point, and I agree, to an extent. However, Michael has said many times that, as far as he was concerned, Terri had died 15 years ago. He needed to move on with his life, something her parents couldn't seem to do. It's a pretty reasonable viewpoint, despite the slimyness of some of Mikey's actions. So yeah, it was convenient, finally putting an end to something that should have been finished 15 years ago.


----------



## nancie2k (Apr 7, 2005)

he could have let her parents take care of her, as they wished, got on with his life that way.


----------



## dmc (Apr 7, 2005)

"1 life lost is murder.  1,000 lives lost is foreign policy."


----------



## Stephen (Apr 7, 2005)

I believe that it was Stalin who said one life lost is a tragedy, one million is just a statistic."


----------



## Jaime86 (Apr 13, 2005)

I think that what happened is terrible.  Just because her husband wanted to marry someone else doesn't mean he should have the right to "encourage her death."  Her family should have had the last say in the matter and the whole thing should not have been dragged out in such a way that it was.  The courts and the government had no right stepping into this case and Terri Schiavo's family should have had the right to keep their daughter alive...no matter what the husband wanted.  NO matter what!


----------



## dmc (Apr 13, 2005)

Jaime86 said:
			
		

> I think that what happened is terrible.  Just because her husband wanted to marry someone else doesn't mean he should have the right to "encourage her death."  Her family should have had the last say in the matter and the whole thing should not have been dragged out in such a way that it was.  The courts and the government had no right stepping into this case and Terri Schiavo's family should have had the right to keep their daughter alive...no matter what the husband wanted.  NO matter what!



Her family did.... It's called her husband...
Doesnt that count for anything in todays ultra moral society??

I'm gettin sick and tired of the religious right trying legislate morality based upon Christianity...


----------



## Stephen (Apr 13, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> I'm gettin sick and tired of the religious right trying legislate morality based upon Christianity...



And what should morality (and thus, our laws) be based on? Your belief system? My belief system? There are tribes that believe it's enitrely acceptable to kill and eat other people. Isn't it awfully insensitive to want to change them to the Judeo-Chrisitan belief of the sanctity of life?

What about Nazi's moral ethics? KKK's? Why should their belief system be considered any more or less moral or legitimate than yours or mine? Don't point to the Bill of Rights, the Constitution or the Declaration of Independance... they were based on Judeo-Christian values.

The answer is that morality cannot come from within man alone. We will choose wrongly every time.

-Stephen


----------



## dmc (Apr 13, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How about something a little less secular..??

Or a little less Tom Delayish....


----------



## hammer (Apr 13, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The problem that I see with the "religious right" is that it's not just Judeo-Christian values that they espouse (and try to enforce upon others), but their particular "version" of these values.

It's interesting how the religious right can have such strong feelings about this case and yet still support capital punishment.  If the "sanctity of life" is so important, than how can one support the government-sanctioned pre-mediated killing of another human being, no matter who they are or what they did?

Sorry if this strayed a bit off topic...


----------



## Stephen (Apr 13, 2005)

hammer said:
			
		

> If the "sanctity of life" is so important, than how can one support the government-sanctioned pre-mediated killing of another human being, no matter who they are or what they did?



2 different issues.

Death as a punishment is a last resort for those that are corruptible beyond repair.

Death as a convenience (Abortion, Euthanasia, Insurance money from a malpractice settlement, want to marry someone else) is aborrhent.

-Stephen


----------



## dmc (Apr 13, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> hammer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



nice... just like the script says...

Good job!!!


----------



## Stephen (Apr 13, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> nice... just like the script says...
> 
> Good job!!!



Wow... so because there are people who agree with me, I'm incapable of expresing a valid thought?

Is that the best response you've got to my last point? Do I win that easily?  :beer: 

-Stephen


----------



## dmc (Apr 13, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You win for following the Religious Right script!!!

And for attempting to force your religious morals on me...
Just like the big guys in Washington do!!

Good job... There could be a job with GWB and Tom Delay waiting for you!


----------



## Stephen (Apr 13, 2005)

And you still haven't refuted what I said. Therefore I'll assume that you have nothing to respond with other than claims of following our leaders.

-Stephen


----------



## dmc (Apr 13, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> And you still haven't refuted what I said. Therefore I'll assume that you have nothing to respond with other than claims of following our leaders.
> 
> -Stephen



I said what needed to be said...
Now I'm cvommenting on your religious moral agenda...

Which - will backfire eventually...  I'll just wait it out...


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 13, 2005)

Morality is the basis of our laws, no doubt about that. The problem I have with the religious right (be they Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Shinto, Tao, or whatever) is their propensity to declare that things must be the way they say they must, because that's what they think it says in the Bible/Koran/I Cheng/whatever. There are many Christian moderates who support abortion rights, euthenasia, free speech, what have you. Unfortunately, they are not terribly vocal (like all moderates, hence the term), so the Bible thumpers get heard.
There's a theory, I think Bloom did it, that describes the psychology of behavior. At the lowest level of development, you don't do things because you fear punishment (jail, hell, what have you). At the highest, you behave in a certain way because it's "right", according to an internalized framework that matches the society in which you live. As a society, we need to evolve beyond the "Because you'll go to Hell" phase and into the "because it's right" phase. However, as long as the thumpers speak louder than anyone else, the government will continue to legislate morality, rather than define right and wrong based on society's actual (humanistic) views.

my $.02


----------



## Stephen (Apr 13, 2005)

But who defines what is "right" What society's views should we adopt? There is no one society anymore. We are a collection of separate societies within this country. Whose do we choose as the one to legislate against?


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 13, 2005)

That's the real problem, isn't it? Who's morality is "right"? An informed and active electorate should, in a perfect world, have the ability to move legislation in the direction that society, as a whole (as defined by the largest number of people who agree on a particular point), deems right. Unfortunately, when barely half the people can be bothered to vote on something as important as the last Presidential election, and those that did were evenly split, it's tough to say the US has an electorate that is either informed or active. 
Jefferson said that Democracy is the best way to insure the people get the leadership the people deserve, and Mencken posited that Democracy shows the true desire of the people, and eventually we'd have a slobbering idiot in the White House. We're not there yet, but the signs don't look good. As long as people depend on whoever's shouting the loudest to set their beliefs ad opinions, things will contiue on their current course. "Right" will be determined by "Might", measured by teh volume of one's voice.


----------



## hammer (Apr 13, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> hammer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can understand and respect that view (although I don't agree), I just would not call it a good example of "Judeo-Christian values".

If I remember right, there's a pretty large Christian organization called the Roman Catholic Church that is opposed to Capital Punishment, and based on what I've read, their opposition to Capital Punishment is for the same reasons as their opposition to death for reasons of "convenience".

So, IMO, support of Capital Punishment and opposition to Euthanasia may be a moral issue, but it's definitely not a universal "Judeo-Christian value".


----------



## dmc (Apr 13, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> But who defines what is "right"



Sounds like your trying your hardest...


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 13, 2005)

I wouldn't call abortion or euthanasia as a "convenience", either. It's a quality of life issue, for everyone involved. A fetus, and particularly a blastocyst, is not a life, and neither is a few months of horrible pain with the spectre of death hanging over you.


----------



## Stephen (Apr 13, 2005)

hammer said:
			
		

> So, IMO, support of Capital Punishment and opposition to Euthanasia may be a moral issue, but it's definitely not a universal "Judeo-Christian value".



Gee, I guess I got an outdated copy of the "script". 
 :wink: 



			
				ctenidae said:
			
		

> It's a quality of life issue, for everyone involved.



Who decides the quality of life of the aborted baby? Hitler honestly felt he was helping Jews from suffering their low "quality of life" issues. I doubt you'd agree with his conclusions. Why would any one else's be more correct?



			
				dmc said:
			
		

> Sounds like your trying your hardest...



I give reasons, you give anecdotes.



			
				ctenidae said:
			
		

> "Right" will be determined by "Might", measured by teh volume of one's voice.



Personally I am frustrated by the groups out there that, when the majority are with them, insist that we have to follow the majority. However, when the majority is against them (as with gay marriage and abortion), then the minority must be "protected".

I'm taking a break for a while... I've stirred enough hornets up for this month. 

-Stephen


----------



## JimG. (Apr 13, 2005)

The saddest thing about all of this is that nobody seems to care about what this poor woman wanted. It's all about politics and religion and personal views of morality.

So, make your living will now, put it in writing and videotape it. This way, the political/religious parasites in abundance in this country won't be able to trample on you like a soapbox.

Pitiful!


----------



## hammer (Apr 13, 2005)

JimG. said:
			
		

> The saddest thing about all of this is that nobody seems to care about what this poor woman wanted. It's all about politics and religion and personal views of morality.
> 
> So, make your living will now, put it in writing and videotape it. This way, the political/religious parasites in abundance in this country won't be able to trample on you like a soapbox.
> 
> Pitiful!


Amen to that!  (oops, I made a religious statement :wink


----------



## dmc (Apr 13, 2005)

hammer said:
			
		

> JimG. said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Religion isn't bad...
Just when people try and shove it down your throat..


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 13, 2005)

It's not that no one cares what she wanted (maybe I'm speaking for myself, here), it's that we don't know what she wanted, and can't do anything about it. We do know what we each want, or would want, and we can do something about our ability to have those wishes fulfilled. We also know what we think the government should and should not be involved in, and would like to think that we can do something about that.


----------



## dmc (Apr 13, 2005)

Her husband knew what she wanted...


----------



## Stephen (Apr 13, 2005)

The odd thing... I don't see that the courts could rule any other way. The spouse/guardian has the say when there is no docuentation in place.

If my wife were in that situation, I wouldn't want anyone else to make that decision. If the parents had one iota of proof that Teri's choice was otherwise, then there would be an issue. 

Having said that, his actions were slimy, and denying the family a chance to grieve, to be present when she died, regardless of the disagreement, was an atrocity, and shows the true character of this piece of dross.

-Stephen


----------



## dmc (Apr 13, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> The odd thing... I don't see that the courts could rule any other way. The spouse/guardian has the say when there is no docuentation in place.



It's not odd... It's the law...
And a every court they took their case to said the same thing...


----------



## hammer (Apr 13, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> It's not odd... It's the law...
> And a every court they took their case to said the same thing...


I don't know any particulars of Florida law or the Florida state constitution, but if that's what the courts said (and that's only what they said) then IMO they did their job.


----------



## dmc (Apr 13, 2005)

hammer said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It wasnt just Fla courts that ruled...
Even GWB's tool of a brother couldnt stop the courts...


----------



## bvibert (Apr 13, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> ...to be present when she died, regardless of the disagreement, was an atrocity, and shows the true character of this piece of dross.



I don't know if its true or not, but I heard a news story that said it was the hospital officials, not the husband, that kept the family out of the room because they were being disruptive and trying to reconnect the life support equipment themselves.


----------



## hammer (Apr 13, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> hammer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Maybe I was just thinking about the courts that only should have been involved in the first place...


----------



## Stephen (Apr 13, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> It wasnt just Fla courts that ruled...
> Even GWB's tool of a brother couldnt stop the courts...



And who are the courts supposed to be accountable to?

May I remind you that the 203-58 vote for the bill in U.S. Congress included 47 democrats and was more reflective of the will of the people than the decision of 3 judges on a review panel?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/20/schiavo/

bvibert, I'd be interested in reading that article.

-Stephen


----------



## bvibert (Apr 13, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> bvibert, I'd be interested in reading that article.



I heard it on the radio, so I have no solid source, sorry...  Like I said I don't know if its true or not, just offering up the possibility.  I don't think it would change anyone's opinion on the matter one way or the other...


----------



## dmc (Apr 13, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> And who are the courts supposed to be accountable to?



The people...
Not God...


----------



## hammer (Apr 13, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> And who are the courts supposed to be accountable to?


Are you talking in theory or in reality?

I'm definitely not a lawyer or a historian (and I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night), but in theory, I think that the courts' jobs are to interpret the law and to ensure that laws do not violate the constitution.

Therefore, I'd say that the courts should be accountable to the law, not to the people (and certainly not to anyone's deity).  If the law's the problem, then that's where the Legislature comes in...

In reality, the courts are influenced by politics, but they are supposed to keep that influence to a minimum.  Doesn't always happen, though...


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 13, 2005)

The courts did as they should have, here, and interpretted the law. The problem arises from JebCo, then BushCo trying to change the law to force the courts to a different decision. There's no way this should have gotten past the local Florida court. At the very most, the Florida appeals court. It should not have gotten to the Governor's office, and absolutely should not have ended up anywhere near the Supreme Court, much less the US Congress. It's not a Federal issue. it was hardly a state issue, and should have only been a family issue.


----------



## Jaime86 (Apr 15, 2005)

*oh my*

You two are fighting over the past.  Yes I know that it's sad that she's gone, but there's nothing we can do to bring her back and the mistakes that the government made can't be taken away.  We're only human, we're supposed to make mistakes.  That's how we learn.  But I am standing my ground, her husband had no right making the decision.  None!


----------



## Jaime86 (Apr 15, 2005)

How would you feel...if you were in a horrific accident and your family did all they could to keep you alive, but at the same time, your husband is giving up all hope of your recovery...even after a lot of years has gone by.  If you have faith, then miracles happen.  God only helps those who believe.


----------



## dmc (Apr 15, 2005)

Jaime86 said:
			
		

> How would you feel...if you were in a horrific accident and your family did all they could to keep you alive, but at the same time, your husband is giving up all hope of your recovery...even after a lot of years has gone by.  If you have faith, then miracles happen.  God only helps those who believe.



What if I don't believe in God?  What if I ddidn't believe in miracles??  
Why do I have to think like you...??? This is America - I'll think on my own - thank you very much...

If "alive" means laying in a bed - while my celebral cortex turned to jelly - shiting and drooling on myself then I'd rather be dead...

Gods will was interupted when man threw his technology at that poor woman...
Keep you religious crap away from me...  It pisses me off...


----------



## dmc (Apr 15, 2005)

*Re: oh my*



			
				Jaime86 said:
			
		

> That's how we learn.  But I am standing my ground, her husband had no right making the decision.  None!



So if marriage is devalued and not that important where someone can make life and death desicions about a spouse..


Then we should let gays marry...


----------



## Jaime86 (Apr 15, 2005)

If it pisses you off then ignore it.  No one said you had to believe in God.  Yes, this is America and  as much freedom as you have to not believe in God, I have the same ammouth of freedom to say that I do.


----------



## Jaime86 (Apr 15, 2005)

Then let gays marry...I am all for it.  I figure that if they are happy in life then it's better than if they were depressed and alone because in that state of mind they are more likely to kill themselves or to inflict pain onto others!


----------



## dmc (Apr 15, 2005)

Jaime86 said:
			
		

> If it pisses you off then ignore it.  No one said you had to believe in God.  Yes, this is America and  as much freedom as you have to not believe in God, I have the same ammouth of freedom to say that I do.



So believe - BUT keep you ideals away from me...
I'm not going to ignore this..

I feel the "religious right" is TOTALLY out of control right now...  And GWB and cronies owe them for the election so it's just gonna get worse as they call in favors...

I WILL NOT IGNORE THIS!  I am pissed off and I will stay that way until this friggin inquisition ends...


----------



## Jaime86 (Apr 15, 2005)

The huff and puff about it somewhere else.  I have as much right to say I believe as you do telling me to keep it to myself.  I HATE GWB...so don't use him to compare me.  If I had my way, he wouldn't have even become president but since the electoral college votes have nothing to do with majority vote of the country...Kerry lost!


----------



## Jaytrek57 (Apr 15, 2005)

> If you have faith, then miracles happen. God only helps those who believe.



What if....god wanted her with him and we, mere mortals were preventing that with machines? Of course, others "know" what god wants...so there is no debating the issue. :wink: 

Does God only help those that believe a certain way?

If you can let me know in study hall, I would appreciate it. (Note: this last line was a joke approved by God....I know he has a sense of humor.)


----------



## dmc (Apr 15, 2005)

Jaime86 said:
			
		

> The huff and puff about it somewhere else.  I have as much right to say I believe as you do telling me to keep it to myself.  I HATE GWB...so don't use him to compare me.  If I had my way, he wouldn't have even become president but since the electoral college votes have nothing to do with majority vote of the country...Kerry lost!



So say whatever you want...  I'm not stopping you...

Just don't be suprised if someone pushes back...  Cause it's starting to happen all over the place..  

We secular Americans are getting sick and tired of the legislation of morality by the current powers that be...


----------



## Jaime86 (Apr 15, 2005)

Does God only help those that believe a certain way?[/quote]

No God does not only help those who believe a certain way...but as long as you believe...he helps.


----------



## Jaime86 (Apr 15, 2005)

Well dmc...I am done fighting with you.  I have said my peace and hopefully you have said yours.


----------



## Jaytrek57 (Apr 15, 2005)

> No God does not only help those who believe a certain way...but as long as you believe...he helps.



???

So if my certain way of believing is that there is no god...he will still help me right?

Ticket to heaven without Sunday Mass and confession.

Cool.


----------



## Jaime86 (Apr 15, 2005)

lol.  You believe right?  It's the same concept as say Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny.  Notice how when you stop believing in Santa, the presents you get at Christmas get fewer?


----------



## dmc (Apr 15, 2005)

Jaime86 said:
			
		

> Well dmc...I am done fighting with you.  I have said my peace and hopefully you have said yours.



I havent even begun to fight this issue...


----------



## dmc (Apr 15, 2005)

Jaime86 said:
			
		

> Notice how when you stop believing in Santa, the presents you get at Christmas get fewer?



After I stopped believeing in Santa I started giving more..


----------



## dmc (Apr 15, 2005)

Jaytrek57 said:
			
		

> (Note: this last line was a joke approved by God....I know he has a sense of humor.)



What did he appear on a tortilla and tell you he has a sense of humor?


----------



## Jaime86 (Apr 15, 2005)

Maybe he did dmc...why do you got to hate on people?  Besides...we're getting way off topic now...this is about Terri...not tortillas!


----------



## dmc (Apr 15, 2005)

Jaime86 said:
			
		

> Maybe he did dmc...why do you got to hate on people?  Besides...we're getting way off topic now...this is about Terri...not tortillas!



I don't hate anybody for their beliefs...
I just don't want them changing laws for religious agendas...

FYI - Terri's dead... She's been dead for over a decade... And the courts back that up... The law of the land..  The law that also say if your married - your spouse is responsible for you...


----------



## Jaime86 (Apr 15, 2005)

Terri still had a heartbeat until recently...so therefore, she was still aliv and yes y machines...but she was alive...


----------



## hammer (Apr 15, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> Jaime86 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I hope no one here is comparing believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny with any religious beliefs...

In any case, I'd like to echo and expand a bit on dmc's point about beliefs.  While a government can (and should) legislate morality at a "common" level (e.g., no murder, stealing, etc.), the moment that we start to bring religion (of ANY type) into government we will start to go down the slippery slope into a repressive society.

[Stepping off of soapbox for now...]


----------



## Jaime86 (Apr 15, 2005)

Religion should not be a part of government but it is and more than likely always will be.  For example...when the government had the ten comandments taken out from in front of the court.  They had no right stepping in on that.  Just because you choose a different way to live your life doesn't mean that you have to impose on everyone else's.  I thought we had a big thing about seperation of church and state...doesn't look that way to me.  Not in the slightest.


----------



## Jaime86 (Apr 15, 2005)

And another thing...how the church bells ring...at certain times...just to let the people of that denomination of church know that it's time for them to pray or what not...but then at the same time...there is a controversy about the fact that in Detroit...there is a section of it that are foreigners and the way they announce prayer...isn't wanted by everyone else so therefore they are getting hounded for it...What ever happened to freedom of religion?  Where has America gone?


----------



## dmc (Apr 15, 2005)

Jaime86 said:
			
		

> Terri still had a heartbeat until recently...so therefore, she was still aliv and yes y machines...but she was alive...



Scientest can keep a heart beating in a jar...  Does that mean it's alive?

So how do you feel about Sun Hudson??
He's the kid that had his breathing tube removed last month in Texas...  He was actually coherent..
He had a disease that was killing him - the hospital decided to take him off the resperator.  The mother begged for them not to do it but there's this thing 
about a law in Texas...
The law stipulates that a Texas hospital, with the consent of a doctor and an ethics committee, can stop care deemed futile and too costly – even if the patient's legal guardian is against the action.


Our president that was SOOOOOOOOOOO into protecting life signed this very law into action as governor of Texas..  Do as i say not as I do...

Why didnt people line up to protect this kid??  Why wasnt Tom Delay upset about this one??

What - does the religious right now pick and choose what they will defend based upon wht's going to get their agenda further??


----------



## Jaime86 (Apr 15, 2005)

Screw Texas law...they had no right...to take that boys tube out...whether or not he was dying anyway...as long as the mother said no...they should not have had a say in the matter...none whatsoever!


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 15, 2005)

You can't wipe every last taint of religion off of any laws, simply because at base, they're for the same thing- whether laws or scripture, they're a framework for behavior created by society. Work any law down far enough, and you can find some scrupture that covers it. Spiritual religion is, IMO, on its way out. In the next hundred years or so, I think you'll see the vast majority of western religious institutions dry up, as science becomes the new religion. Even then, science will provide a basic behavorial framework. Rule of Law, guided by scientific principles, rather than religious ones. The advantage, in my mind, is a reliance on observable, quantifiable events, rather than articles of faith open to a huge variety of interpretation. We'll see.

As to the argument against arguing about the past- it very much impacts the future. If the federal government continues under the assumption that it can (or should) govern on an individual level, then we're all doomed, no matter if it works on a theocratical or humanistic basis. That's the real problem, as I see it, in the Schiavo case. The Supreme Court failed in its duties when it didn't immediately reject the case and return it to the Appeals Court. Congress failed us when it decided to call hearings on the matter. It's not a Federal issue, and it shouldn't be. Laws are pretty clear on who has authority- a spouse is always considered next-of-kin, unless found mentally incompetent. Case closed, as the Florida courts ruled. You start changing the laws around that, and you open a can of worms. If the spouse isn't responsible, who is? The parents? What if they're dead? It doesn't take long before you decide the state is responsible, even over a competent spouse. If the states have to take responsibility, how big a leap is it for the State to take it? It's a bad precedent to set, and, I fear, not the last we'll see of the issue.


----------



## dmc (Apr 15, 2005)

Jaime86 said:
			
		

> Screw Texas law...they had no right...to take that boys tube out...whether or not he was dying anyway...as long as the mother said no...they should not have had a say in the matter...none whatsoever!



Terri's case got press because her parents have money.. And it happend in Florida where GWB has a tool for a brother...

Hudson's case got no press because his mother is poor..

Remember... The meak shall inherit the earth...
Religion is too busy pushing agendas to take care of the people that don't have $$$...


----------



## dmc (Apr 15, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> You can't wipe every last taint of religion off of any laws, simply because at base, they're for the same thing- whether laws or scripture, they're a framework for behavior created by society.



I agree...
I may not be religious but I respect people and beliefs...


----------



## hammer (Apr 15, 2005)

Jaime86 said:
			
		

> Religion should not be a part of government but it is and more than likely always will be.


I agree...complete separation of government from religious beliefs will not happen.  The problem today, however, is that the current leadership is pandering to the religious groups that voted them into office.



			
				Jaime86 said:
			
		

> For example...when the government had the ten comandments taken out from in front of the court.  They had no right stepping in on that.


Who had no right stepping in on that?  The courts?
If you have a problem with that, then I'd suggest you write to your Congressman or Senator to have the First Amendment to the Constitution (and it's historical interpretations) revised.



			
				Jaime86 said:
			
		

> Just because you choose a different way to live your life doesn't mean that you have to impose on everyone else's.


I think that's what dmc's point was...do you agree with that, then?



			
				Jaime86 said:
			
		

> I thought we had a big thing about seperation of church and state...doesn't look that way to me.  Not in the slightest.


Unfortunately, nope...

BTW, Jaime86, keep posting...you do have some good points (even if some of us don't entierly agree )


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 15, 2005)

*Jaime86*- removing the ten commandments from the courthouse was an excercise in seperating Church and State. You can't have people going in to a Court of Law, passing by a religious work like that. What if they're Muslim (or Buddhist, or Shinto, or whatever), do you think they'll believe they're getting a fair trial if they have to walk by the guiding principles of Christianity to get to court? People have to firmly beleive in the justice of the courts and the laws for them to be in any way effective. Anything that erodes that trust on a religious basis has to be removed from the system.


----------



## dmc (Apr 15, 2005)

hammer said:
			
		

> BTW, Jaime86, keep posting...you do have some good points (even if some of us don't entierly agree )



Conservative College kids are my favorite debate fodder!

I agree... Good debate...  Crappy subject but good debate...


----------



## Jaime86 (Apr 15, 2005)

Yes Hudson's case got no publicity but do you notice how whenever somehting new arrives...it's shown but once...and then if something of the same magnitude happens again, nothing is said...the media pays a HUGE part in this whole thing.  If it weren't for the media, we never would have had protesters everywhere protesting having her tube removed in the first place...what was said would have been final...but since there was such a controversy...the media had to make a big point in making it a huge story...


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 15, 2005)

In a way, it's good the Schiavo casse got such huge publicity. Hopefully it identified the religious panderers, and pissed off a few people who otherwise wouldn't have voted in their next Congressional election, or in 2008.


----------



## dmc (Apr 15, 2005)

Jaime86 said:
			
		

> Yes Hudson's case got no publicity but do you notice how whenever somehting new arrives...it's shown but once...and then if something of the same magnitude happens again, nothing is said...the media pays a HUGE part in this whole thing.  If it weren't for the media, we never would have had protesters everywhere protesting having her tube removed in the first place...what was said would have been final...but since there was such a controversy...the media had to make a big point in making it a huge story...



It got no publicity because they are poor and not in a state where the leaders are all suckeling off the conservative agenda...

Funny thing is... If you do a google news search a lot of the stories about the Hudson case have been removed...  Gee I wonder by who....??

I first heard the story about Hudson on NPR... I never saw anytrhing about it on Fox News..


----------



## Jaime86 (Apr 15, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> *Jaime86*- removing the ten commandments from the courthouse was an excercise in seperating Church and State. You can't have people going in to a Court of Law, passing by a religious work like that. What if they're Muslim (or Buddhist, or Shinto, or whatever), do you think they'll believe they're getting a fair trial if they have to walk by the guiding principles of Christianity to get to court? People have to firmly beleive in the justice of the courts and the laws for them to be in any way effective. Anything that erodes that trust on a religious basis has to be removed from the system.



What's the big deal though...honestly...this country formed on Christianity...why are we now not permitted to continue living by it.  "In God We Trust"--that whole controversy is BOGUS...those words were put on and in things for a reason...because when this country first became such...that's how and what people believed.  Yes, the economy and the country has grown into great proportion...but maybe we all need to just go back and take a look at the whole meaning behind how and why we're here.  For freedom of religion...


----------



## dmc (Apr 15, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> In a way, it's good the Schiavo casse got such huge publicity. Hopefully it identified the religious panderers, and pissed off a few people who otherwise wouldn't have voted in their next Congressional election, or in 2008.



I wonder if the timing of Eric Rudolphs plea bargin was for the religious right to show that they are not as bad as people think.... As bad as him that is...


----------



## dmc (Apr 15, 2005)

Jaime86 said:
			
		

> ctenidae said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was against the removal of the ten commandments..
It really if a historical document that lot's of our beliefs come from...
I don't think it was meant to throw you in jail if you don't honor your mother or father...


----------



## Jaime86 (Apr 15, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> It got no publicity because they are poor and not in a state where the leaders are all suckeling off the conservative agenda...
> 
> Funny thing is... If you do a google news search a lot of the stories about the Hudson case have been removed...  Gee I wonder by who....??
> 
> I first heard the story about Hudson on NPR... I never saw anytrhing about it on Fox News..



Of course it got no publicity because as you have said...they are poor!  Poor people in the US are overlooked when in reality...sometimes they know more of what is going wrong than the well off people.


----------



## Jaime86 (Apr 15, 2005)

I am done for today guys...miss me...enjoy arguing...I got class!  Buh bye...very nice debates...thanks!  -Jaime86-


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 15, 2005)

I think it's the first four commandments that that cause the problems. Well, first four in the original Hebrew commandments, first 3 in the King James version....


----------



## dmc (Apr 15, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> I think it's the first four commandments that that cause the problems. Well, first four in the original Hebrew commandments, first 3 in the King James version....



Remember Moses in Mel Brooks "The History Of The World" movie..

Holds up three tablets..
"I give you the 15"
One table drops and smashes
"the 10 Commandments"


----------



## BeanoNYC (Apr 15, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> Holds up three tablets..
> "I give you the 15"
> One table drops and smashes
> "the 10 Commandments"



Count De Money: "You look like the piss boy"
King Louis: "and you look like a bucket of sh*t!"

Miriam: "But Sire, I just simply don't do it"
King Louis: "Birds do it.  Bee's do it.  I just did it, and I'm ready to do it again!"


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 15, 2005)

It's good to be the King.

"Hey, Torquemada, what do you say?"
"I just got back from the auto de fe!"
"Auto de fe, what's the auto de fe?"
"It's what you oughtn't to do, but you do anyway!"


----------



## Vortex (Apr 15, 2005)

Monty Python, the other Day and History of the world today.  Smiles.


----------



## hammer (Apr 15, 2005)

Bob R said:
			
		

> Monty Python, the other Day and History of the world today.  Smiles.


Agree...sometimes it's good when a serious discussion is interrupted by a "bit of fun".


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 15, 2005)

Agreed, hammer. 100%


----------



## bvibert (Apr 15, 2005)

hammer said:
			
		

> Bob R said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Definately!


----------



## smitty77 (Apr 15, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> May I remind you that the 203-58 vote for the bill in U.S. Congress included 47 democrats and was more reflective of the will of the people than the decision of 3 judges on a review panel?



But didn't a national poll show that upwards of 65% of "the people" thought that what the the U.S. Congress did was wrong?  Don't confuse the "will of the politician to fulfill a political agenda" with the "will of the people".  I know my next vote will be to vote out the incumbent if he/she voted in favor of the measure.

Smitty


----------



## smitty77 (Apr 15, 2005)

Jaime86 said:
			
		

> God only helps those who believe.



If that's what gets you through the day.  My mother-in-law is a firm believer in God and the catholic church.  Yet God keeps smacking her down.

In her lifetime she has undergone two brain surgeries to remove tumors, has had her features altered by a malfuntioning pituitary gland, had colon cancer, has one duaghter with multiple sclerosis and another with fibromyalgia.  She helped her husband fight prostate cancer, had her husband cheat death last year (while she was recoving from the colon cancer, requiring a pacemaker), was diagnosed with glaucoma, and is currently nursing him back to health after a nasty bout with colo-rectal cancer.

If God should be helping anyone, this poor woman and her family are prime candidates.

Let me say I don't believe, and I'll leave it at that.

Smitty


----------



## dmc (Apr 15, 2005)

smitty77 said:
			
		

> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't put much stake in congress or the senate right now..  At least not with that scum Tom Delay there..
I don't trust anything thats happeing..  I think Democrats are cowtowing to Republicans now cause they realize that with the Rep majority and the recent attempts do do away with filibusters in the Senate - they won't be able to push their Dem agendas..
So they are sucking it up and voting for Rep initatives...


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 15, 2005)

If you can't beat them, join them. If that makes you sick, vote for Independent. Libertarians are looking less and less whacked out every day.


----------



## Stephen (Apr 15, 2005)

Um, and what did Delay do that made him scum?


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 15, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> Um, and what did Delay do that made him scum?



Couldn't resist...let's see...stacked the Ethics Committee so that they would let him off...re-wrote the rules...and, oh yeah, kept open a controversial vote last year on the floor for OVER 2 HOURS so he could cajole people to change their votes.  

Completely classless and lacking of any integrity...which is quite hypocrtical.   :angry:


----------



## Stephen (Apr 15, 2005)

And how is that different from Democrats filibustering and thus adding a requirement for supermajority that is not called for in the Constitution?

All of Congress is guilty of sneaky tactics.


----------



## dmc (Apr 15, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> Um, and what did Delay do that made him scum?



My god... I just spit coffee all over my screen...

BAW HAW HAW...

Just news google his name and you'll see that both Dems and Reps are pissed at him...

I don't even have the time to list every issue...


----------



## dmc (Apr 15, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> If you can't beat them, join them. If that makes you sick, vote for Independent. Libertarians are looking less and less whacked out every day.



I always score Libertarian when I take political tests....


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 15, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> And how is that different from Democrats filibustering and thus adding a requirement for supermajority that is not called for in the Constitution?



The Senate Filibuster has been a long tradition of the Senate. In fact, Mr. Strom Thurmond used it a lot during the Civil Rights Debates as you know.  The vote to end filibuster was later downgraded to 60 votes.  

I'm not going to defend them. Guess I'm kind of old school New Englander..do what you're say you're going to do.  :roll:   

From the start, DeLay has always disgusted me.  The whole redistricting thing last year was over the top and a clear violation of the "states rights" song he's sang for his career.  :angry:  :evil:


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 15, 2005)

The filibuster is a time-honoured tradition, used by both sides. It's difficult to arrange, so it's only used when really needed. The new rules would eliminate the filibuster, making it easier for Republicans to ram through legislation, no matter what. Democrats aren't adding anything- it's a Republican initiative.
You're right, though, Stephen- both sides use sneaky tactics. If you think Democrat's fillibusters are bad, look into the passage of the Patriot Act. After the Senate version was passed (wih only one "nay" vote, Russ Feingold) the House version was rewritten, after midnight, behind closed doors, by a few Republicans. 4 copies of the several hundred page bill were handed out to Democrats in the wee hours of the morning, with a vote called after 1 hour of debate. I count that as pretty sneaky.


----------



## Jaytrek57 (Apr 16, 2005)

Top 5 things I believe from this thread but should hit the delete button on my keyboard.

5. Would the question of filibuster be brought up if it was a "other party" controlled house??????????

4. More people have died on this planet ,"In the [[insert deity name here]], than have been "saved".

3. Theological and "law" debates should not reference the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus...that is if you are Christian...everyone else should get the anology or go back to where they came from.

2. Monty Python references are spiritually universal.

1. Always when it comes to religion, politics and the Red Sox/Yankees...type your response then hit delete.

Note: I am in a tired sarcastic frame of mind and would hike with all of you then let you but me a beer. :wink: 

Peace.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Apr 16, 2005)

I am heartened and surprised by the poll results. It appears we have a sensitive and informed bunch in here.


----------



## pedxing (Apr 16, 2005)

JimG. said:
			
		

> The saddest thing about all of this is that nobody seems to care about what this poor woman wanted. It's all about politics and religion and personal views of morality.
> Pitiful!



_On the face of it, that reflects some serious misinformation.  If you look at the court rulings, they were focused on trying to determine what she wanted._



			
				Stephen said:
			
		

> Hitler honestly felt he was helping Jews from suffering their low "quality of life" issues.



S_ounds like a very novel interpretation of Hitler to me.  Is there evidence for this appraisal?_



			
				Jaime86 said:
			
		

> How would you feel...if you were in a horrific accident and your family did all they could to keep you alive, but at the same time, your husband is giving up all hope of your recovery...even after a lot of years has gone byIf you have faith, then miracles happen.  God only helps those who believe.



_First, I would be angered that someone would try to keep my body chained to this world through artificial means in that state.

Second, if you are going by faith in miracles, and ignoring science and the liquid state of much of her brain - then artificial feeding should be un-necessary.  Odd that God would insist on a longer peroid of artificial feeding before he chose to un-liquify brain tissue, or defy the rules of neuro-biology. Or does God somehow recognize the husband's custody?_

More thoughts:
  A very thorough and apparently neutral site dealing with this case (and presenting many facts with links to key documents) is here:  http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

Having studied the case a bit, I'd have to say the vilification and misinformation on Michael Schiavo is extreme.  It's odd that Michael Schiavo's motives would be impuned because of the malpractice settlement.  He put the money in a trust for her and it seems to have spent most of his money on lawyers.  Wouldn't a purely selfish guy have walked away with the money and left her in the custody of her parents?  He also turned out at least 1 million offered to walk away from the case (his lawyers claim 10 Million).

As Nicholas Stix who opposed removing the feeding tube said, "Note that this “devil” had spent over 5000 hours caring for his wife in the nursing home during those first five years alone, trained as a nurse, in order to assist in her care, and has for 15 years harassed staffers into giving his wife an extraordinary level of care. He has never deserted his wife, whom he still visits regularly and whose care he has never stopped supervising.

On Nightline last week, Jay Wolfson, who had served as one of Mrs. Schiavo’s guardians ad litem, said that doctors had told Mr. Schiavo from the beginning that his wife’s condition was hopeless. After five years of caring for her, he seemed finally to accept what they had been saying all along."

  If he moved on after that, it makes sense to me.  I would expect that's what Terry would have wanted.  I would have.  Why have my wife chained to my body just because someone has artificially chained me to this world?


----------



## pedxing (Apr 17, 2005)

I am still bothered by the extreme vilification of Michael Schiavo and the misinformation promulgated, and which seeps in here.   The oldest of Schiavo’s kids by this new woman, according to a recent peace is 2 ½ years old.  Apparently Michael Schiavo started accepting that Terri would never recover by 1993.  He asked the court to consider whether it was in her interest to artificially keep her alive in 1998.  So he his raising of the issue was not about his already having another family.  The clear evidence shows he was quite devoted to Terri after her heart attack… as I noted above, he trained for a nurse so he could be more effectively involved in her care, he spent a huge amount of time by her side and was very active in protecting her dignity (keeping things clean, making sure she was turned over – apparently she never got bed sores, which is indicative of excellent care).   We can have legitimate disagreements about quality of life, artificial preservation of life and euthanasia without wrongly vilifying the parties to a huge and painful situation.  I do think it outrageous that public figures have bashed him, and that others have raised accusations that he abused his wife so long after her coma.



			
				Stephen said:
			
		

> > i suspect he was also fighting to ease his own pain.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





			
				Jaime86 said:
			
		

> Just because her husband wanted to marry someone else doesn't mean he should have the right to "encourage her death."





			
				Stephen said:
			
		

> Having said that, his actions were slimy, and denying the family a chance to grieve, to be present when she died, regardless of the disagreement, was an atrocity, and shows the true character of this piece of dross.
> 
> -Stephen


----------



## Jaime86 (Apr 18, 2005)

smitty77 said:
			
		

> Jaime86 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well Smitty...That's what God had planned for her in her life.  Sometimes he tests us in cruel and unusual ways...but that's how we learn and how we find out how strong our binds are...I agree that if anyone should be getting help from God, that it should be this woman and her family...but I am not God and if I were...I would help her...but she is not the only person in peril in the world that needs his help...there's not ONLY the United States where people pray for salvation and forgiveness...and help...there's tons of other people around the world too.


----------



## JimG. (Apr 18, 2005)

pedxing said:
			
		

> JimG. said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You misunderstood my comment...I know the courts were charged with this obviously impossible task. My comment was directed at the masses of political/religious and pseudo-religious groups who latched onto this issue as a way of furthering political and personal agendas. 

In that context, I stand by what I said...not one of those people really cared a bit about that poor woman.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Apr 18, 2005)

*the lies*

One of the things that bothered me was when the woman finally passed away, her father, her brother and that scumbag Ralph Terry all proclaimed to the national media that her husband was not with her when she died. Course, a few hours later, the truth came out and her husband was indeed at her side when she died.

Why did they lie? I got the feeling this instance was a metephor for the whole situation.


----------



## pedxing (Apr 18, 2005)

Got it.  Jim.  I did wonder if you intended something less sweeping than "nobody seems to care" - I think the courts and many of the less histrionic observers were focused on what she would want.  This is why I prefeaced my statement with "on the face it" - figuring I had to focus on what you posted, not what I might guess you intended.  

I think demonizing her husband serves to distract for Terri the real human being and focus attention on a rhetorical victimized Terri who could be an icon for bashing the Courts and the liberals.

BTW:  Amidst all this court bashing, has anyone kept count of how many lf the Supreme Court justices were Democratic appointees?  You might venture a guess before looking it up.

Another BTW --- SRO - I think you were referring to Randall Terry. I doubt calling him a scumbag is helpful, but I do see him as a mis-leader.


----------



## pedxing (Apr 18, 2005)

Maybe I'm beating a dead horse here, but wasn't there something in the 10 commandments about bearing false witness.  I guess it didn't stop Randall Terry as SRO notes.

But check this out for a look at the mud slung at Michael Schiavo and a reality based apprasial of the evidence.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59521-2005Apr16.html


----------



## dmc (Apr 18, 2005)

pedxing said:
			
		

> I think you were referring to Randall Terry. I doubt calling him a scumbag is helpful, but I do see him as a mis-leader.



Scumbag is too good for that guy...


----------



## smitty77 (Apr 20, 2005)

Jaime86 said:
			
		

> smitty77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But you said that God helps those who believe.  I refute, and you have to further qualify your statement to say God only helps _some_ of those that believe.  Back-pedal, grasshopper.

Was God "helping" those poor helpless altar boys when the "messengers of God" were doing those unforgiveable things to them?


----------



## pedxing (Jun 15, 2005)

Interestin foot note.  The medical evidence from the autopsy backs up the husband and goes against her parents on many points (includin: she was blind, had no evidence of brain trauma, had irreversible damage....)

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/06/15/schiavo.autopsy.ap/index.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8225637/


----------



## dmc (Jun 15, 2005)

Does that mean "The Right" was wrong?


----------



## BeanoNYC (Jun 15, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> Does that mean "The Right" was wrong?



Well I'm sure there will always be "ends justifying the means" arguments from here on out.  I feel much better about my stand and for supporting Michael Shaivo now that the autopsy looks to be in his favor.


----------



## dmc (Jun 15, 2005)

BeanoNYC said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I only supported his right to make the decision...


----------



## ChileMass (Jun 15, 2005)

The autopsy evidence pretty much ends the debate, in my opinion.  Science and reason triumphs over superstition and fear again......


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 15, 2005)

35 more posts later, I think you may be proved wrong, *ChileMass*. The best we can hope for is a bloody draw, I think.


----------



## pedxing (Jun 15, 2005)

Ultimately it was the courts decision on what was in her best interest.  Yes his testimony influenced the court, and he supported the decision.

The principle and the process were essential, but it is always reassuring when the right process is followed and the evidence points to the fact that it resulted in the right decision.  Had the autopsy been different, I still would have stuck by the principle - but not without some sorrow.  It's definitely more uncomfortable to stand up for a principle when its enactment leads to the right outcome.

My grandfather was a minister in Texas.  A member of his congregation was convicted of statutory rape (supposedly seducing a 14 y/o girl) on the basis of his confession.  He told my grandfather that he was innocent and that the confession was coerced.  He convinced my grandfather to push for an investigation.  My grandfather helped him campaign for hearings, investigation and a new trial. They got some national press attention. Eventually it was proven that the confession was coerced and new trial was ordered.  Ultimately he was released.  Years later the man was caught red handed having sex with a 13 year old girl.  This result did not change my grandfather's feelings about the principle of banning coerced confessions (which is enshrined in the constitution), but he took no pride in his role - the whole thing left a bad taste in his mouth.  He would not have devoted such energy had he believed the perp to be guilty.


----------



## ChileMass (Jun 15, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> 35 more posts later, I think you may be proved wrong, *ChileMass*. The best we can hope for is a bloody draw, I think.



???  I don't get your point......????


----------



## BeanoNYC (Jun 15, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> BeanoNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Note taken.  I'm actually rehashing my original feelings on the subject.  Didn't mean to put words in your mouth.  (are fingers more applicable on a forum?)


----------



## cbcbd (Jun 15, 2005)

pedxing said:
			
		

> My grandfather was a minister in Texas.  A member of his congregation was convicted of statutory rape (supposedly seducing a 14 y/o girl) on the basis of his confession.  He told my grandfather that he was innocent and that the confession was coerced.  He convinced my grandfather to push for an investigation.  My grandfather helped him campaign for hearings, investigation and a new trial. They got some national press attention. Eventually it was proven that the confession was coerced and new trial was ordered.  Ultimately he was released.  Years later the man was caught red handed having sex with a 13 year old girl.  This result did not change my grandfather's feelings about the principle of banning coerced confessions (which is enshrined in the constitution), but he took no pride in his role - the whole thing left a bad taste in his mouth.  He would not have devoted such energy had he believed the perp to be guilty.


Wow! Sort of reminds of "The Devil's Advocate".


----------



## Jaime86 (Jun 16, 2005)

Well...I was only 7 when my stepfather molested me for the next 4 years and when it finally came out...he only got house arrest until I turned 18...no prison time or anything...so how's that for the court system?  *rolls eyes*


----------



## dmc (Jun 16, 2005)

BeanoNYC said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My whole point on this is - it was the husbands choice given to him by proxy..
So I was for whatever he decided... If he decided to keep the tubes in - I would've supported that as well..


----------

