Posted on 03/22/2006 10:38:49 AM PST by KevinNuPac
Why stop the trial? No one, at that time, knew the true extent of the brain damage and whether or not some recovery was possible.
Wow! Ok. I'm on the opposite side of this deal. I live in FL - only 10 minutes from the nursing home Terri was in. I lived with this story for 15 years. Most of you outside the state only heard snippets here and there.
I'd like to try to put something in perspective here. We are mostly Christians on this site, or we believe in some higher power/being, including myself. First, there is absolutely NO evidence whatsoever that Terri's husband was cruel to Terri in anyway at any time. I know a lot of you are going to get angry at that statement because of all the "talk" that came out at the end of Terri's life. Let me tell you - no one said a word about any mistreatment until the doctors gave the final word that Terri had irreversible brain damage.
Now, for some reason, we all believe that human life is the most precious of life on this planet. I disagree. I believe that all life is precious and no one or nothing's life is more important than another. I also know that, from the reports, it took the response team almost 7 minutes to reach Terri after she collapsed. There was not 45 minutes or over an hour that elapsed before Michael called the 911. Has anyone thought that perhaps God wanted Terri to join him then? If it had not been for medical intervention, Terri would have died that day of the accident and she would have been with God in heaven. Right? We, people, intervened and stopped it because we somehow believe that we can "fix" things. that we are supposed to save all and not let God do his thing. For the 1st 5 years Michael did everything he could. He got her care, he got experimental treatments for Terri, and the families were getting along. Then, Michael got the bad news that there was no hope for Terri and all hell broke loose.
I am a firm believer in the Constitution and I have been over the 14th amendment repeatedly. Terri was rightfully represented in court on many, many occasions. Before everyone gets ticked off at me, please read the Florida constitution's 14th amendment. Terri was never denied any care, she was never denied the right to pursue happiness and her husband does, under FL law, have the final word in cases like this.
This was not a matter of being cruel and starving a woman to death. Terri followed the natural course of dying when the tubes were removed. Her body was meant to die without the intervention. God wanted her. He had always wanted her. Humans were the ones that didn't want to let her go. Humans weren't thinking about what was best for Terri. The only person who thought about that was Michael. He didn't give her a drug to kill her. He let the natural course of life and death occur. Anyone who knows about death, watching someone they love die, they know that a week or two before they die they lose their appetite, they don't drink, they go in and out of lucidness. Why do humans think that we have to intervene, especially when there was no hope? It is because we are compassionate and we can't stand to lose the life of those we love. We are mortal. We don't understand why we have to live without this warm, loving soul. But whose wish matters most - ours or God's?
When we have our beloved dog or cat suffering from diabetes or some other terminal illness, when they can't have any life than that of being attached to tubes for the rest of their lives, we do what we call "humane". We put them down so they don't suffer. Why is this ok for our beloved pets, our four-legged soul mates but it's not ok for people? Why and when did we become so important and above everything else in this life?
I heard the argument that we wouldn't starve an animal to death so why were we doing that to Terri? We didn't. We let nature do what it was meant to do for 15 very long and exhausting years. Many people in the care of hospitals, hospice, etc. all end their lives this way. It is called a natural progression to death and we all will face it.
I suggest that until you are in that situation, you do not pass judgment. I am proud of what our court system did. We do not need our judges legislating from the bench. Oh, the world wanted the judges to step up to the plate but what if they had? What if judges began to legislate from the bench on everything and every issue? We can't allow that no matter how emotional we are about an issue. We must let the laws do what they were put into place to do. If we don't like the laws, then change them.
Sorry, doesn't fly.
Terri was not dying, therefore, she had to be murdered.
Ping
Terr's case is worse than Dred Scott. Convicted felons sitting on death row have more rights than Terri had.
If you are truly interested, do a google search using Terri Schiavo and Dred Scott.
Don't waste your time trying to reason with these people.
LOL!!!...:)
Terri wasn't allowed to die. She was murdered because she was refusing to die. She fought hard to stay alive, but after thirteen days, she succumbed to the torture.
My uncles fought in WWII against the practices being implemented here and now. It was wrong when the Nazis did it, and it's wrong now. Murder will always be wrong. The Nazis had pretty words for it too, but it was ugly, and it still is.
All the evidence of abuse that you claim to be unaware of is readily available. Try a google search. You can also find photos of what starvation and dehydration does to a body. It's not the euphoria that Terri's murderers claim it to be.
The extermination of disabled people is not God's will. He said "Thou shalt not murder." He did not make any exception for vulnerable people.
Ignore the troll. Everybody else has since his confession.
Why don't you ping me directly?
I'm still waiting on an apology from who you pinged.
No, everyone else has not. And I confessed to nothing, shrew.
You confessed to anti-freeping. Now go away.
You will not get an apology from me for your behavior. You confessed to anti-freeping, and joined with others in entering my name at an anti-freeper site. You were told to keep this off Free Republic. Now drop it.
What the heck does that mean? Sounds awfully like being accused of being "counter revolutionary" in an Article 58 trial.
Have you forgotten the warning Jim posted to YOU on this thread?
Or are you once again needing a remedial course in reading comprehension?
Yes, you did. Now take your anti-freeping to your other site.
Go to hell.
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.