Posted on 03/29/2005 8:58:34 AM PST by Long Cut
We, the Witness Protection Program For Freepers, aka the Wild Turkeys, aka the Coalition of the Sane, have through mutual discussion and rigourous thought, determined that:
1. The discussion threads regarding Terri Schiavo (hereafter referred to as "TS") have become too full of innuendo, rumormongering, hyperbole, hysteria, namecalling, paranoia, and general poor behavior to warrant participation.
2. Said threads have degenerated into "echo chambers", wherein the same, common thoughts are continually posted again and again, and the same old disreputable, unconfirmed and/or false urban myths are propagated.
3. Anyone who joins in said theads with alternative viewpoints to the most extreme posts are routinely driven away with slander, accusations, and vile namecalling.
4. No data or evidence contrary to the "prevailing opinions" are accepted, considered, or discussed; and in fact are rejected outright in most instances.
5. That the continued calls for armed insurrection, military or paramilitary involvement, impeachements of politicians and judges, and death threats are embarassing, stupid, shortsighted, doomed to failure, and contrary to most if not all conservative thought prior to this case, as well as damaging in the extreme to FR and the conservative movement as a whole.
6. That such emotional, hyperbolic, and propaganda-driven hysteria is in fact contrary to all conservatives USED to stand for.
7. That the holding up of swastika and other Nazi imagery towards the police and the Bushes, the use of children as political props, and the disruption of the peace at the Woodside Hospice can only reflect badly on conservatives in general, and should be discouraged.
8. That the pursuit of this issue to the exclusion of all others by the GOP has damaged, perhaps beyond repair, the pursuit of other important issues as well as the reputation of the GOP, FR, and conservatism.
The WPPFF is NOT of one mind as to the case of TS or its correct outcome. In fact, wide disagreement exists within our little group. However, we are united in our wish that reason and sanity be respected in the discussion, as well as the rights of all parties involved or participating. We wish to discuss this as adults and intellectuals, as conservatives and as FRiends, not as children screaming past each other on some playground of hysteria. We wish for facts and evidence to be provided, discussed reasonably, and considered fairly.
We reject all accusations of Naziism, "death cultism", or other slander as methods of debate. We reject the practice of "spamming" multiple threads, of posting unending vanities, and the posting of propaganda and calls for violence. We reject, in fact, all unseemly and childish behavior which has come to characterize this case on FR.
We DO invite others to come and reasonably discuss the issue. We have no problem with FReepers who wish to debate in a rational and fair manner, and with due respect for their fellow FReepers. We have NO problem with those whose views are formed by religion; however we reject "preaching" or "being beaten with a Bible" as legitemite debate tactics. Not all of us are Believers, and such tactics only cheapen the source.
If a FReeper finds this an acceptable meansd to discuss this and other issues, they are welcome to join in and participate. Those who find pleasure in attacks, flame-baiting, slander, stalking, and personal atacks will be ignored, and their egos will go unfed.
We assume this thread to be a zone of sanity in an overheated atmosphere. Thus, a general amnesty is in effect. If posters conduct themselves within the guidlines above, we will be happy to discuss and debate with you. If a poster wishes to apologize for past slips of the tongue, or for possible "over-the-top" statements to another, it will be graciously accepted, and your company welcome.
Please bring a sense of humor; we feel that too many have been taking themselves too seriously lately.
Let the discussion begin!
Signed,
The WPPFF, aka The Wild Turkeys, aka the Coalition of the Sane.
Frist and Levin disagreed on the record. You quote one side, and argue that's the legislative intent.
Not fair.
If Terri left a written statement saying "I don't want a feeding tube," is it your position that the Court could not give effect to that statement?
If you believe it could give effect to such a statement, do you believe a Court could give effect to a similar oral statement?
If not, why not?
Don't get too down. You knew coming in we were going to be in the minority here.
Keep your head up. You know you're right, as do I.
That wouldn't be such a good idea, I lost $2 yesterday, trying to win a 'big boy' truck for my hubby. He was verra disappointed.
:(
Your post #347 must have been egregiously inappropriate.
Thoughtomator, you are drawing a distinction here I'm having trouble following. Are you saying people are entitled to refuse medical treatment only so far as it will not lead to their death? Many people consider chronic feeding tubes extraordinary means and say so on their living wills.
Yes, and the last line of your post in #591 is spot on.
I'm not dancing at all, I am staying on the same ground - the inalienable right to life - while you are attempting to pull me off of it.
I have no opinion on either of the questions you raised, because neither applies to this case. There is no written statement to that effect, and the only testimony of any oral statement is rife with so many conflicts of interest that make such testimony incredible.
Take that typo and run with it, my man.
Mr. FRIST. I share the understanding of the Senator from Michigan, as does the junior Senator from Florida who is the chief sponsor of this bill. Nothing in the current bill or its legislative history mandates a stay.
Maybe it is just me, but that looks a lot more like agreement than disagreement.
She (or her surrogate) has the right under the law of Florida to refuse legal treatment. The judge ruled that these were her wishes.
You might be saying, The law should not allow feeding tubes to be considered part of this.
Many people would agree with you. I would agree with you, the Catechism of the Catholic Church agrees with you.
But the law of Florida does not agree with you.
They haven't done anything illegal. If you don't like the law, then you need to work and get the law changed. But as it is currently written, everything that has happened has dotted the i's and crossed the t's and it is legal.
Arguing what it ought to be and what it is are two different things.
Hmm, where do I sign up? You know things are getting bad on FR when we have to resort to discussions of old Star Trek episodes just to cut the undercurrent.
That's where we are then, apparently. It all comes down to the fact that you don't believe Terri ever said it. Because you seem to concede that IF she did say it, there is absolutely nothing untoward about anything the courts or the State of Florida have done - right?
I don't think food and water can legitimately be considered extraordinary means, even if they must be administered through a feeding tube. A living will that demands another person kill you can only be void if there is an inalienable right to life.
You do bring up a great point by inference though, which I think has been inadequately explored, and that is that the thoroughly inhuman method of starvation has been preferred precisely because it is a passive method of killing someone, a way to euthanize without admitting the purpose.
I think ultimately the feeding tube-as-extraordinary-medical-intervention concept will prove to be insufficient to defend the right to life, becoming otherwise an inevitable license to starve patients to death.
They were both in agreement that the bill didn't mandate one.
"Take that typo and run with it, my man."
Some typos actually make a certain sense, like the one under discussion. When that happens, I like to point it out. It's language humor. I like language. Language is my thing.
I guess then my position will have to be that the Florida Statute 765 which authorizes this passive starvation - even with the consent of the patient - is unconstitutional because it cannot be compatible with the right to life.
I do not see how that can be permitted without having open season on all the helpless who cannot speak for and feed themselves, and I can see it opening up a whole can of worms in the direction of deliberately keeping people incapacitated in order to be able to legally kill them.
I believe this position is well grounded in Article 1, Section 2 of the Florida Constitution where it states "No person shall be deprived of the right to life... due to physical disability".
But, according the FL state law, food and water are considered extraordinary means, and there is no difficulty in witholding nourishment. This is legal. Schiavo is NOT committing a legal crime, but perhaps he is committing a moral one. And you can infer what you wish.
Fair enough. I would argue that what an individual legislator hopes, or assumes, is completely irrelevant to the meaning of a bill, and is probably inadmissible for that purpose - if we considered such, the Civil Rights Act would not extend to women, as gender protection was inserted in an effort to kill the bill. The only "legislative intent" that matters is the intention of the legislature for what the law will require - not what collateral effect it is hoped to have.
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.