Posted on 04/20/2006 1:37:42 PM PDT by AZRepublican
Maybe because on his watch it stopped being a crime to murder a disabled woman and steal her million-dollar estate.
If he had starved a dog there may be of been more outrage from your side.
Dogs may be euthanized legally. Humans may not.
Furthermore, dogs don't make verbal statements refusing forced feeding. False analogies are just that, apples and oranges.
As I said, good people disagree on this issue.
Obviously, you like to use inflammatory rhetoric and name calling. Good luck getting converts to your side.
Floridians rejected your viewpoint. Jeb Bush can't even find a Republican sponsor to introduce a bill banning verbal requests for withdrawal of feeding tubes.
OK, I take back my joke about you being devious. You are no competition for this kind of thinking :-)
Euthanized, yes. Denied food and water, no. We republished the Pinellas cruelty-to-animals statutes several times to make the point that Terri was treated worse than any other creature.
Last year, my neighbor's old Australian shepherd dog refused to eat and drink.
Instead of force-feeding his dog, he took the dog to the vet. The vet euthanized the dog. The vet speeded up the dying process.
If the vet had not euthanized it, the dog would have died just like Terri.
O. J. probably acted in a sudden rage, not out of cold premeditation.
I had forgotten about Laci's baby...in that regard Scott was worse, killing two people.
Posting statement by discredited witnesses is weak. I'm not going to re-hash this Schiavo saga again. I'm not going to convince you of anything, and neither are you going to convince me of anything.
Your side lost because it had a weak case. All the courts that reviewed the facts and the law disagreed with your side, and most of those judges were conservative, Republicans, or both.
Here in Florida, we have the right to make a verbal request rejecting feeding tubes.
If you don't like it, try to convince the people to change the law.
Good luck in your quixotic quest.
From his affidavit:
“To enter the room of Terri Schiavo is nothing like entering the room of a patient who is comatose or brain-dead or in some neurological sense no longer there. … As I looked at Terri, and she gazed directly back at me, I asked myself whether, if I were her attending physician, I could in good conscience withdraw her feeding and hydration. No, I could not. I could not withdraw life support if I were asked. I could not withhold life-sustaining nutrition and hydration from this beautiful lady whose face brightens in the presence of others.” --3/23/2005
When you are in hole, stop digging.
Sure. Getting back to my original comment, why did they refuse Terri to appear in court despite pleas from the Shindler attorneys? I think most people get it, you are and an exception of course.
You forgot Peter Singer in your list of bioethicists.
.
That doesn't matter. It was an "end of life matter" and those decisions don't belong in government. We are told those decisions are best left to family, as was the case with Schiavo, Peterson AND O.J. They were private family decisions.
But speaking of spousal rage, you need to look into the mystery surrounding the circumstances as to how Terri came to be paralyzed.
I have no room left on the list so have to be very choosy. I kicked John Wayne Gacy off to make room for Eric Pianka and his plans to annihilate 90% of the human race. Now that is serious bioethicking. Peter Singer never made the list in the first place. He's a sissy. He's nothing but wind. Kill defective babies, he says, but does he lead the way? Has he strangled even one baby? No.
Dr. Ronald Cranford is on the bubble. The only thing that keeps him on the list is that he's marginally less creepy-crawly than Jack Kevorkian.
I don't follow. I've read the autopsy report several times. It is not obvious at all that Dr. Cheshire's observations have been discredited. Would you kindly cite the references you have in mind and argue your case?
OK. Settled. Crist over Gallagher.
I strongly advice that you read what Martin Katz wrote in "The American Thinker" (March 29, 2005) regarding Terri. It sums it up why so many of us continue to be horrified by the treatment she received.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
