Schiavo case

[Cadmus]

Well it is a crime, your personal opinion notwithstanding.

Although you express your opinion as being so dominant and correct, I don't feel compelled to accept it as gospel.

 

Please tell me how you define crime such that you can make such a strong statement. Why is it that all of Schiavo's opponents, such as the Bush administration don't seem to share your view?

 

Why do you state your opinion in such strong terms as being so much better than that of others? What is your purpose?

[Cadmus]

There are children without medical care in this country who desperately need it while an absurd amount of money is spent keeping a woman alive who isn't really, by any decent definition, alive[/b'].

I agree. However, for many people there are more important issues at stake that children, who don't have much of a voice it seems. Government domination of people's lives is something more motivating to some people, it seems.

[Cadmus]

Coral Rhedd' date=' Cadmus gave me a interesting reply to my question concerning the methodology of ending this womans life/existence. He agreed that once you have decided on the logic of killing her then the exact method is not an issue (i paraphrase, apologises to Cadmus if i have mistaken his position at all). But, he also pointed out the difference between so called 'Passive' euthanasia and 'active' euthanasia.

 

This is part of the distinction i am trying to understand and highlight. It seems that many people are more comfortable with an act of euthanasia when it seems to be cleaner and tidier, for example, pulling out a tube. [/quote']I quite agree. Many hypocrits (in my opinion) are demanding that passive euthanasia, as horrible as it is, is the only "humane" way to help someone die.

 

These are probably the same people who buy all of their food at the store and never realized that chicken have heads or feet because they aren't sold with them.

 

In matters of this import i think it is necessary to be absolutely honest with ourselves.

I disagree. This is clearly not necessary. It is desireable, I agree. However, based on the way that the government works, and the way that people are swayed by silly propaganda and self-serving ideas, it is clear that people are typically not honest with themselves, and therefore that it is not necessary, however desireable.

[Skye]

This isn't particularly relevent to the case' date=' but in terms of the politics involved it's amazing that poll after poll after poll on this has come back so overwhelmingly opposed to this intervention by congress. They range from a low of 61% (Fox) to 71+% (ABC) to a high of 80-85% in some of the informal Internet polls on affiliate web sites and, MSNBC, etc. But whatever the number, it always comes down to the same thing -- House Republicans *badly* overestimated the support they'd have on this.

 

As I say, it doesn't have any particular bearing on the case (or whether or not they should have intervened), but it's interesting from a political perspective, and it's interesting as a counterpoint to the consistently held popular view that America is "ultra" or "religiously" conservative.[/quote']

America isn't as a whole, but some people are. And these peoples will vote based on these kinds of decisions. On the other hand, how many people who are against the intervention are going to punish the Republican party at the next election for it?

 

I see it as a matter of shoring up a part of the Republican voter base, without really risking much of a backlash.

[ecoli]

America isn't as a whole' date=' but some people are. And these peoples will vote based on these kinds of decisions. On the other hand, how many people who are against the intervention are going to punish the Republican party at the next election for it?

 

I see it as a matter of shoring up a part of the Republican voter base, without really risking much of a backlash.[/quote']

 

 

I honestly don't think this case will affect votes at all. Americans have ashort memory, by the time November rolls around, I doubt many people will be thinkthing about the Shaivo case.

[Tom Mattson]

Although you express your opinion as being so dominant and correct' date=' I don't feel compelled to accept it as gospel.

[/quote']

 

*shrug*

 

Suit yourself.

 

Please tell me how you define crime such that you can make such a strong statement.

 

I define "crime" as "that which is against the law, and more serious than a violation" (aka: "a misdemeanor or a felony" aka: "transgressions of the law which are tried in criminal court"). Since there's a misdemeanor statute against adultery in Florida, adultery is a crime in Florida.

 

Why is it that all of Schiavo's opponents, such as the Bush administration don't seem to share your view?

 

How on Earth should I know? Ask them.

 

Why do you state your opinion in such strong terms as being so much better than that of others?

 

It ain't my opinion, it's a fact.

 

What is your purpose?

 

To raise the point that there was an avenue open to the Schindlers that could have prevented the action of the Federal government on their behalf.

[Pangloss]

I honestly don't think this case will affect votes at all. Americans have ashort memory, by the time November rolls around, I doubt many people will be thinkthing about the Shaivo case.

 

Especially since it'll be NEXT November before it would have any relevence, that being the next point at which we can vote on House members and Senators.

 

Since the House races went almost completely ignored amidst the hubbub of the 2004 presidential race, most of these guys (on both sides) are feeling their oats. House Republicans are particularly smug, and have absolutely no reason to feel otherwise. They have the voters filling one pocket and special interest groups filling the other one, and the media just playing right along.

 

It's really no wonder the Terry Shiavo case got to this point. No wonder at all.

[Coral Rhedd]

These are probably the same people who buy all of their food at the store and never realized that chicken have heads or feet because they aren't sold with them.

 

Thanks for that one. My first chuckle of the day.

[Coral Rhedd]

America isn't as a whole' date=' but some people are. And these peoples will vote based on these kinds of decisions. On the other hand, how many people who are against the intervention are going to punish the Republican party at the next election for it?

 

I see it as a matter of shoring up a part of the Republican voter base, without really risking much of a backlash.[/quote']

 

Absolutely!

 

But what puzzles me is that even if Americans are not voting on the basis of religious conservatism, many will still have their chains jerked by an appeal to the hatred of homosexuals.

 

Neither of my brothers go to church, and one of them was never an especially faithful spouse but they are both all exercised over "The Defense of Marriage Act." They keep seeing homosexuals as some sort of encroaching menace.

 

The Republican Party is expert at convincing people to vote against their own best interests. When my brother's have their retirement futures blighted by conservative changes to Social Security, will they open their eyes, I wonder?

 

Both are in business for themselves but it seems that they would rather suffer under an administration that perks big business and ignore increases to their own tax burden.

[Pangloss]

Today the state legislature rejected the governor's appeal for another unconstitutional law, and then recessed for Easter.

 

The governor promptly produced a neurologist who's a member of far-right political organizations, who stated that he believes Schiavo is not in a persistent vegatative state. Further examination of court documents, however, reveal that he reported that he saw no sign of conscious activity of any kind on her part during his 90 minute visit.

 

A state judge promptly issued a restraining order preventing anyone from entering the hospice without his authorization.

 

Meanwhile the full appeals court in Atlanta also rejected the parents' appeal, and the family is supposedly appealing to the US Supreme Court. I imagine we'll hear from them some time tonight.

[coquina]

My father died at home from Alzheimer's Disease. The hospice nurse explained to us that when it was time for his body to shut down, he would stop eating. He was not hungry, when we tried to spoon feed him he pushed the spoon away. He wouldn't drink anything either. The hospice nurse told us that this is a natural occurance for a person who is dying, they do not feel hunger. I know my dad didn't. Therefore, I do not feel that witholding nutrition is cruel.

 

I find it rather bizarre that people who claim to be religious are so intent on forcing this woman to remain in the world when the time has come for her to leave it. If a person believes that when one dies, one goes to heaven, and that all wounds are healed, and the person becomes whole again, why in the heck are they bound and determined to keep her here? It doesn't make sense to me.

[TimeTraveler]

I have not read through this entire thread, I don't have the time. I also have not been following it very much so my opinion is not formally developed. But, what I think is if her parents are willing to take care of her even if she has a chance to recover or not they should be allowed to. The husband has moved on, he should just let her go and leave her with her parents. As a parent thats what I would want from my children. They brought you into this world, it should ultimately be their decision.

 

And it seems to me that the arguement is she is not aware and suffering, well by that arguement if she is not aware, would she be aware that she is suffering? My wife and I care for her mentally disabled uncle and trying to understand a disfunctional mind is difficult.

[Newtonian]

Reread what I wrote. There are children without medical care in this country who desperately need it while an absurd amount of money is spent keeping a woman alive who isn't really, by any decent definition, alive[/b'].

Her being defined alive/dead is why there is conflict between medical opinion(BTW what is your medical background to make such a strong statement),one saying PVS the other that she didnt fit this diagnosis.You say an absurd amount of money is being spent on her care.You must be unaware then that she was awarded $750,000 from a malpractice suit,to pay for her care.The majority of this has been allowed to be spent on Micheals attorney fees,which was not what it was intended for.If you feel so strongly for children without med/care im suprised this fact has not brought any comment from you.

The site you gave is a clear propaganda site for the Schindler's and "right-to-life" causes. I don't get my information from such clearly biased sources.

Oh its quite clear drom your introduction into this thread' date='that you originally didnt get any information from anywhere.Factual statements of this case throughout the last decade,not disputed which ever site you go to is hardly properganda.

What you call "facts" are clearly one-sided. As someone who once worked in the newspaper business, I prefer my information to be as objective as is possible. Call me old-fashioned, but there are huge differences between a news story and an editorial.

I see,i dont see how you delivering newspapers is relevent?.Call me old-fashioned but you clearly joined this thread with hearsay and opinion.The facts of this case are clearly not one-sided.Take a little time if you will to read wikepedia on schiavo.You may notice some relevence!

 

 

Daily newspapers used to be the backbone of intelligent information in this country before they were infected by the desire to pander to their readers with stories more closely related to gossip than fact. Perhaps you are too young to remember this.

LOL, If you seriously think this,i see that our discussion is at an end.

If this is someone on television' date=' I don't watch television. I believe I have stated that elsewhere on this site.[/quote']

Oh its clear.

I went to this link and read it. It is acceptable. However' date=' it did not change my mind. The character, or lack of it, of Terri Schiavo's husband has nothing to do with the fact that I think "Terri's Law" is an improper venture of the Legislative Branch into Judicial territory.[/quote']

At last,I have no problem with your opinion here.

 

BTW, you should learn to spell idle, guidance, whether, it's and many others, but I am too bored with your ranting to look back at your other posts.

Poor attack Coral.Just about sums up your childish behaviour.I make spelling mistakes and errors in grammar like many,yourself included.

[Pangloss]

Newtonian having a problem with someone attacking him personally is like George Bush asking Syria to pull its troops out of Lebanon.

[Cadmus]

BTW what is your medical background to make such a strong statement

No medical background is required to form an opinion of that nature.

 

You say an absurd amount of money is being spent on her care.You must be unaware then that she was awarded $750,000 from a malpractice suit,to pay for her care.

Two points: 1. Don't you think that $750,000 is a lot of money? 2. Just how many decades of care do you think that this money would last?

 

The majority of this has been allowed to be spent on Micheals attorney fees,which was not what it was intended for.

How many millions do you think have been spent so far on people trying to take control of her life?

 

Oh its quite clear drom your introduction into this thread,that you originally didnt get any information from anywhere.

Excellent observation. You are suggesting that she dreamed up the Sciavo case, not having heard about it from anywhere. You are playing along with her dream, and you accuse her of not getting info from anywhere? Why not create your own dream and see who plays along?

[blike]

In case anyone didn't see the news, the US Supreme Court turned down Schiavo's parents again. Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is trying to take state custody of her again, which will probably be shot down before the ink dries on his signature.

 

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050324/D891E8HO3.html

[blike]

Why not create your own dream and see who plays along?

He already has. Worst.debate.ever.

[Pangloss]

Agreed.

[Pangloss]

I'm really stunned at the way the far right has latched on to this. It's got to be one of the most obvious cases of political extremism in recent history. Every poll seems to show the public overwhelmingly in favor of exercising her wishes.

 

This woman stated on numerous occasions, not just casually but within the serious context of the deaths of two family members (two different times!) that she never wanted to live in that condition, not only to her husband, but also to friends who testified in court. 23 judges now have come down on that side (when even one shouldn't have been necessary, since there's 200+ years of legal precedence behind this). It really boggles the mind.

 

I can think of worse things for people to want than to give someone every chance to live, but there are FEW things worse than to disregard and contradict someone's stated medical preference in order to impose the will of the majority. This is a perfect example of how the far right actually has no interest whatsoever in freedom. What they want is state-enforced compliance. (Not that the far left is any different, of course.)

[Newtonian]

Coral have you changed sex and nickname because im pretty certain this isnt you.

Two points: 1. Don't you think that $750' date='000 is a lot of money? 2. Just how many decades of care do you think that this money would last? [/quote']

Desperately tried to fathom your post but yes i think $750,000 is a lot of money.??Hopefully it would have payed for her medical care from 1990 till now 2005.

Excellent observation. You are suggesting that she dreamed up the Sciavo case, not having heard about it from anywhere. You are playing along with her dream, and you accuse her of not getting info from anywhere? Why not create your own dream and see who plays along?

Are you mentally ill.Or do you have an intellectual barrier in reading posts.Maybe it is just me but your post doesnt make a great deal of sense.

[Newtonian]

In case anyone didn't see the news, the US Supreme Court turned down Schiavo's parents again. Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is trying to take state custody of her again, which will probably be shot down before the ink dries on his signature.

Are you gloating with some sick satisfaction.Your a very strange person.

 

He already has. Worst.debate.ever.

No ive been talking sense mate.Your posts have been waffle and are quite annoying.Regardless wether your the site owner or not,the fact is you posted the family were attaching strings and stuff(like a puppet)which you must have either been there or made up.And posted the video was shot in 2001,again totally wrong it was 2003!.

Then infamousley saying what was best for Terri was unimportant..are you on the same planet mate.

 

You are correct its a bad debate,mainly from yourself.No video by your admission exists but you know it went on for hours with duct tape,paper mache and string.Priceless!!!

[Pangloss]

I know you are but what am I!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

(chuckle)

[Cadmus]

Desperately tried to fathom your post but yes i think $750,000 is a lot of money.??Hopefully it would have payed for her medical care from 1990 till now 2005.

 

Good, because I though that you disagreed when you said this:

 

You say an absurd amount of money is being spent on her care.You must be unaware then that she was awarded $750,000 from a malpractice suit,to pay for her care.

 

You certainly seemed to me to be suggesting that $750,000 is not a lot of money.

 

Are you mentally ill.Or do you have an intellectual barrier in reading posts.Maybe it is just me but your post doesnt make a great deal of sense.

 

Excellent. Thank you for saying what I think about your post. After all, you said the following, which really does not make any sense at all, does it?

 

Oh its quite clear drom your introduction into this thread,that you originally didnt get any information from anywhere.

Surely you must realize that she must have obtained some information from somewhere, or else she would not even know about the case.

[whap2005]

Ok all, Here is a fact I find hard to argue with. There is not much doubt that her severe brain damage has left her in a state in which she basically does not even know whether she is alive or dead. What is the harm in letting somebody else care for her? Her husband has moved on but her blood family has not, and will be devastated by watching her be starved to death by the courts… Her husband is just an incredibly selfish and stubborn azzhole, that is basically the root of the whole issue here.

[Cadmus]

Ok all, Here is a fact I find hard to argue with.

This is not a fact at all, but an opinion, and many people can argue with it, including me.

 

What is the harm in letting somebody else care for her?

Do you really think that you can say without a doubt that no one, such as her husband, would be harmed?

 

Her husband is just an incredibly selfish and stubborn azzhole, that is basically the root of the whole issue here.

I think that you are incredibly selfish for saying this. How can you claim that he is selfish, stubborn, and a asshole because he has to make a decision that you do not and he has made it in a way, after a decade of intense suffering on his part, that you believe that you would not?