Posted on 05/30/2006 11:14:37 AM PDT by KevinNuPac
Not at all. That is required for letter to the editor submission.
Sorry if I violated a rule.
Nice try! You have been her how long? Your editorial is not in a newspaper here. You need to be consistent with your legalisms. I don't see where it could be an oversight.
I am happy that you have grandchildren. Me, too. 5 of them, so far. They all were born to Christians, who were taught the value of life. It is the same thing I have learned. I also taught them other truths from Scripture.
The most important mission for each and every Christian is to live a life that glorifies God. That is the magnet that changes mens minds, with the help of the Holy spirit. The most important mission for the unsaved is to serve themselves. We are all guilty of that most of the time, Christian or not. The difference is whether we can hear the gentle push from God. He doesn't beat anybody over the head.
One of my favorite teachers made an analogy. He tried to explain why people sin. It's is because of that single thing above, selfishness. It is the battle for the soul of man.
Any time a person has their sin exposed, the natural reaction is to defend the action. In this modern day, the church has given itself over to social causes, at the risk of losing its message. The only message a Christian has, is to enjoy an abundant life, and bring others to Christ.
The sinner has always been living in sin. So do we. Who's winning the war, while you still refighting lost battles?
"We battle not against fless and blood..."
...with apologies to all for my lousy typing skills:>)
MM, the judges are criminals. They are homicidal judicial activists. If you don't get it, then you evidently are a proponent of murdering disabled people. TERRI WAS MURDERED.
I'm thinkin' there's a lot of dough behind the death cultists and consider that the terripac is just a front for really, big money. It is worth consideration.
Candidate for Governor Charlie Crist would abandon Scott so death cultists visible at Crist's Fla AG Page could kill Scott for his lying wife.
"TROLLS APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE FOREHEAD." (if you want instant irritation).
you two supposedly don't know each other but maybe you should get a room.
I can retire this flag if Tom Gallagher becomes the next Governor of the State of Florida.
Is Scott's Hearing a life or death matter tomorrow? Please advise.
"MM, the judges are criminals. They are homicidal judicial activists. If you don't get it, then you evidently are a proponent of murdering disabled people. TERRI WAS MURDERED."
That is your opinion. Criminals, for me, are defined by their conviction of a crime in a court of law. You, apparently, have a different definition.
You seem to have lost touch with common sense on this issue. You have an opinion, and that's fine. I have a different opinion.
As for murdering disabled people, I'm certainly not in favor of that. I am, however, never opposed to letting the dying die a natural death. As I said, I'm in that situation right now with my father-in-law. I imagine that he could live another year or two with a feeding tube and numerous hospital visits. He does not want that, and wishes for his life to be over.
To that end, he is refusing food and water. Should we shove a feeding tube down his throat? I don't think so. It is his choice to die without intervention. His family is honoring his wishes, which he expresses quite clearly.
I have just a sneaking suspicion that you would not approve of that. And there it is. I hope you make your wishes clear to your relatives, telling them that you want to be kept alive no matter what. Write it down in proper legal format. Then, when you are debilitated so you can no longer speak or otherwise let people know that you have changed your mind, they will continue to maintain your life, no matter what.
Terri's case is one for the legal system to sort out. It has sorted it out. I think you're fighting a hopeless, and senseless battle in this, but that's your right.
The judges are part of the culture of death - I don't know how they hooked up with the death lobby but oops, they did it.
Terri was murdered for Derek Humphrey's, George Soros',Fla Right to Die, for the ACLU, the Atheists of Florida, Hostage Woodside, the American Bar Assn.,Pinellas Cty Sheriff Rice, Senator Jim King, ERGO, et al, and for Michael Schiavo.
Natural death vs. murder. Push 1 for natural death and 2 for murder.
Many terminal patients lose their appetite. That is completely different than taking the lives of disabled Americans after robbing them of their rehabilitation monies.
Judge George Greer and the other judges are criminals and it's not my opinion. Killing Terri was a big conspiracy for the euthanasia agenda. I can't connect thet dots for you here in one post but it was a massive effort.
Many people would have landed in jail if Terri was allowed to live. So, they killed her.
Pinellas County is now known as "Death Central." People bring their relative to Pinellas County to get "rid of" them because they can. Some pay ransom to their children so their own children won't have them killed in a hospice or hospital.
THIS IS THE REALITY. It sounds impossible but it is true. Seniors held hostage unless they pay their children to let them live.
It is dangerous for me, not senseless to keep telling the truth, and that I will continue to do.
My first statement was merely to state that the law requires that someone in a minimally-concious state may not be fatally dehydrated; the question of whether Terri may have been in such a state comes up later.
Your answer seems to have little to do with the point raised. If patients in a minimally-concious state often have substantial periods in which their symptoms are consistent with PVS, the fact that they have such periods should not depend upon who's observing them.
How so? Many of the people who were with Terri for hours on end seemed to find that she seemed at least occasionally aware. Michael's "experts" who declared her PVS did not examine her for even an hour.
Since you dodged point #2, it seems pointless to build upon it but maybe offering up a question might help: in a 30 minute exam, how could a doctor distinguish between a patient who was PVS, and a patient who was MCS but happened to be 'zoned out' during that 30 minutes? For a doctor not to be a charlatan, he must have some reasonable basis for a claimed diagnosis. So how can a doctor giving a 30 minute exam make the determination in question?
Well, the video I saw of her conversation with her father demonstrated a degree of apparent awareness; although it would be possible for such apparent awareness to be the result of reflex or chance, any reasonable doctor would have at least tried to explore it. Michael's doctors did not.
What am I supposed to see there?
Very few, if any, people go through life without ever contradicting themselves about anything. Michael Schiavo is, to put it mildly, quite a lot worse than most in that regard. As for mindset, I'm more than happy to hear additional evidence, especially if you can offer me evidence of Terri's wishes other than the Schiavos' testimony, or any pointers to reliable means of distinguishing PVS from MCS in 30 minutes or less. I don't like the things find myself having to believe in this case, so if you can offer me other hypotheses that are consistent with what I observe, I'd like to hear them.
I have not talked with Mrs. Schiavo; I've merely read her testimony. I can't quite figure, though, how a person's "best friend" wouldn't bother to see her for so long or been so out of the loop with regard to her condition. What evidence do you know of, aside from Joan's testimony, that she really was Terri's "best friend"?
Do you believe that courts never make mistakes or acted improperly? If courts sometimes make do such things, why is it inconceivable that this one did so in this case?
I think one of the biggest problems many of Michael's supporters have in this case is that they refuse to acknowledge the existence of evil. It is extremely discomforting to realize that some very evil people exist and do some very horrible things. Accepting the existence of impropriety in the handling of Terri Schiavo's case by Michael Schiavo, George Felos, and Judge Greer, requires acknowledging some very nasty and horrible evil. It's much more comfortable to just believe that everything was really all right, whether or not any of it makes any sense.
Perhaps it would make things easier to break down what one must believe:
I have said all I will say on this subject. I have no interest in getting entangled in an endless discussion. You believe Terri was murdered. I do not. And there it is.
It appears that it is a very small minority that feels the way you do about this.
You are welcome to your beliefs. I do not share them.
What is the nature of your father-in-law's ailment? If it is something like cancer and the prognosis would be poor even with treatment, I would in no way begrudge a decision to forgo chemo with the intention of being able to live better for the remainder of his life (even if his life ended up being shorter as a result). I'd infer, though, that his ailment is something else. What is it?
Terri was denied her rights under the Constitution and she died a barbaric death because she could feel pain and suffered greatly. The culture of death and its tentacles murdered her.
It was very simple for the media to sway public opinion of Terri's case. The public was blatantly lied to and that was the sole reason that public opinion reflected minimal support for her murder.
"What is the nature of your father-in-law's ailment? If it is something like cancer and the prognosis would be poor even with treatment, I would in no way begrudge a decision to forgo chemo with the intention of being able to live better for the remainder of his life (even if his life ended up being shorter as a result). I'd infer, though, that his ailment is something else. What is it?"
The nature of my father-in-law's illness is none of your business, to be quite frank. He is dying. He is old. He does not wish further treatment. That is all you need to know.
Not everyone's life and death is your affair, you see. The lives of people in your immediate family are, but not those of members of my immediate family.
There are no legal issues in my father-in-laws impending death. It is a private matter. It is sufficient to tell you that he is dying.
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.