Schiavo's Sister: U.S. Doesn't Value Life

TBO.COM ^ | 1/21/06 | PETE IACOBELLI

[8mmMauser]

I was there and saw facts, evidence and the distortions.

My position is that we shouldn't allow the State to murder the innocent. What is yours?

[ContraryMary]

From what I saw, they just wanted to take care of their severely brain-damaged daughter for the rest of her life. They wanted her to be surrounded by loving family.

Terri's parents tried to take care of her once before and were so overwhelmed with the task that they put her back in a hospital/hospice.

[pickyourpoison]

"the word, "conservative"

Jim Robinson was against pulling Terri's feeding tube and felt it was wrong. Anyone have his post on this subject?

[robertpaulsen]

"I just hate state sponsored murder. Don't you? "

You bet.

[8mmMauser]

People who really do not and maybe cannot understand try to build a box of definition that fits their perspective. I use the term, "cognitive dissonance" a term I learned many decades ago from a liberal sociology professor, to describe their paradox.

So if they can fit their definition into the box, and they leave out the rest of the definition, well, they just live with it. Ergo a "conservative" who also believes in pro-death.

[8mmMauser]

I am glad you agree. Now let's round up the ones who killed Terri and search for some justice in their killing this poor innocent.

[tpaine]

paulsen dares:

I said that conservatives believe in the rule of law, not the rule of man. I said that conservatives believe in the facts and the truth, not in their feelings. We say "Yes", not "Yes, but". Liberals do that. I said that conservatives believe in "states rights", not the centralized power of the federal government.
Tell me how any of that redefines conservative. I dare you. I double-dog dare you.

I'll take your dare; -- you claim:

I said that conservatives believe in the rule of law, not the rule of man.

Yet many of your posts here at FR claim that 'majority rule' at the State level trumps our Bill of Rights; - correct?

I said that conservatives believe in the facts and the truth, not in their feelings. We say "Yes", not "Yes, but". Liberals do that. I said that conservatives believe in "states rights", not the centralized power of the federal government.

Yep, you've claimed that conservatives believe in "states rights", -- like in the 'right' of California to prohibit assault weapons; - correct?

Tell me how any of that redefines conservative. I dare you. I double-dog dare you.

Conservatives do not believe that a "states rights" trump an individuals rights.

[robertpaulsen]

"Now let's round up the ones who killed Terri and search for some justice in their killing this poor innocent."

You go ahead and start without me.

[robertpaulsen]

FR Posting Guidelines

Don't jump threads - If you get involved in an argument in one thread, it's considered poor manners to restart the previous argument in the middle of an unrelated thread.

Trying to get yourself banned?

[bvw]

There is plenty of testimony, sworn and unsworn, that long-term care patients for whom feeding by hand would take any caregiver time beyond some minimal receive surgical feeding tubes for the convenience and cost-cutting of the care facility.

So, no, a surgical feeding tube is NOT artificial support.

Would you call a colostemy bag "artificial support"?

[utahagen]

You obviously did not follow the Schiavo case closely. Michael Schiavo wanted his wife, Terri, to be denied nutrition and hydration so that she would die, rather than live thirty or forty more years the way she was. Terri's parents did not want their daughter dehydrated to death and were willing to care for her for no matter how incapacitated Terri was. Terri perhaps could have improved with better medical care, but her parents wanted her not to be dehydrated to death even if she wasn't going to improve. Here's an analogy: a Down Syndrome baby may never become more intelligent, but that doesn't men it's moral to starve and dehydrate it to death. People who think Terri Schaivo was "removed from life support" simply do not know the facts about this case.

[8mmMauser]

"Now let's round up the ones who killed Terri and search for some justice in their killing this poor innocent."

You go ahead and start without me.

Awwww, don't you really want to know why they killed Terri? Whose side are you on? Mikey? Judge? anti-FReepers? At least you are consistent.

[robertpaulsen]

"for whom feeding by hand"

Terri could not be fed by hand. Why are you even wasting my time by bringing this up?

[8mmMauser]

I see you are around still.

[bvw]

You assert that a surgically implanted feeding tube is "artificial life supprt". It is not. For example I have a person in my town who had such a tube for most of her life -- from when she swallowed some caustic agent as a toddler. In recent years she was fortunate enough to have further surgeries, care and therapy -- and for what seems the first time in her life, she was able to swallow again.

[Minus_The_Bear]

I agree that Terri never would have recovered and most likely (to state one way or the other is simple conjecture) didn't not have remaining mental faculties. Still, why was dehydration used as means of death? I found it to be inhumane and something that just never be done to an animal let alone a human being. They should have just given her morphine.

[Lesforlife]

If not read about Denver's Terri -

"Letting Dylan Go" December 18, 2005 www.denverpost.com

[robertpaulsen]

"You assert that a surgically implanted feeding tube is "artificial life supprt"."

Since Terri couldn't swallow, a surgically implantred feeding tube was artificial life support. For her.

[bvw]

If Terri could not stand because of a hip injury would an stainless steel hip bone be "artificial life support"? And do not forget the example of a colostemy bag! Is that also "artificial life support"?

[robertpaulsen]

"They should have just given her morphine."

Once the decision is made, I agree that a faster method could be explored. But Terri's death was painless.