Posted on 03/23/2005 5:49:34 AM PST by xzins
No one is a Nazi here. Nazi metaphors are not helpful.
That was pointed at me, as a Presbyterian.
It's not a metaphor. It is an analogy. And an apt one at that. And if we as a nation are willing to actively kill the disabled because they are inconvienient, then we are no better than the Germans of 1933.
Terri Schiavo is not being allowed to die with dignity. She is being lawfully executed by torture.
"She is being lawfully executed by torture."
Actually, there is considerable disagreement as to what, if anything, Mrs. Schiavo is feeling right now. So in my opinion, it would be hard to prove that she is being tortured.
Let me know when we're actively killing the disabled.
What I see us doing here is passively killing a brain-dead woman - a woman who died 15 years ago. This isn't an execution or torture. She is already dead; her organs still linger on.
If I am right (and the trier of fact has found that I am...), then this is the right thing to do. If I am wrong, the issue is with the facts (she's not dead), and not the laws. My position is contingent on the fact that the evidence points towards her being brain-dead.
I gotta go. Thank you all for such stimulating, provocative and enlightening discourse. Good night.
She is a human being jude. She should not be denied water or food if she has the ability to swallow it. She is being murdered. She is not being allowed to die.
Law School appears to be warping your better judgment.
Churchhill: What kind of left field argument is that?
Historically, it's not that bad of an argument - the very same argument is made in Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, which is considered one of the standard works on the history of Nazi Germany. The author argued, as a Reformed Christian himself - I believe Lutheran - that the anti-semitic current flowing through German Protestantism was a contributing factor to the Holocaust.
That's neither here nor there, as regards this issue, however.
Correction - she was one. If we grant the premise that she is brain-dead (and that premise seems reasonable, and supported by the evidence), then it is not far afield to say that she is little more than a corpse with a pulse.
Law School appears to be warping your better judgment.
Law school has little to do with my position here. We haven't discussed the case much in our classes.
I would imagine the county, but I don't know.
You are in denial. He has police stationed in the room to make sure nobody gives her water or food. Face it, your buddies are proactively killing her -- if you held someone in a closed room and prevented them from receiving any water or food util they died, you would most certainly be on trial for murder when caught.
That's pretty sad Jude. First of all she is not brain dead. Secondly even if she was her heart is beating on its own and she is breathing on her own. IOW, God has not seen to take her home yet.
Frankly Jude, I think that God has kept her alive as a test of our nation's moral character. Are we going to surrender to a culture of death or are we going to maintain our longstanding culture of life.
Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
I fear we have collectively made the wrong decision in this case. Choosing wrong on this issue appears to be choosing cursings over blessings. God help us.
You've been shown the order, but no matter -- let's asssume for the sake of argument that you are correct. I feel sure that you will, if intellectually honest, agree that if it is the order of the guardian only, then the guardian is (a) comitting a heinous crime, (b) can be arrested and prosecuted for murder when she dies.
It is clear to me Jude, that a 3 month fetus cannot survive on its own....therefore to kill it is not murder???
Nor 6 mos, nor 9 mos....
This is no different than the Roe v. Wade finding and it will permit active euthanasia into our country in the guise of these "statements" to family members and the "written living wills."
Let me ask you this: If Bill Gates dies with a property will about the disposition of his property can the state FORCE its execution?
Follow on: If you have a "living will" and you are in a coma, will the state have the option to FORCE its execution even if the family is as yet reluctant to play that card?
Imagine a culture of "forced" living wills and minimally testified to verbal statements.
P-M: It's not a metaphor. It is an analogy. And an apt one at that.
Are you losing it, Marlowe?
I don't think you or I know what is 'going on in that room'. I will agree that the guardian is responsible at law for his actions, whatever they may or may not be.
I suspect, however, that once Terri passes, the circus will fold its tents and move to the next town. The 'fun' at poor Terri's expense will be over.
Perhaps. I know I am afraid for the future of our country if we are willing to overlook what is happening before our very eyes.
Are Amreicans any less vulnerable to drifting into a culture of death than the Germans of 1933 were? I suspect that we are no better than they were. They loved their dogs and their children, yet just a few rationalizations and compromises and the next thing they knew they were all nodding in approval at the extermination of the mentally retarded, the infirm, and the Jews.
It CAN happen here.
If Terri is brain dead, that's radically different than a viable fetus or embryo. It's much more akin to the rare infant born without a brain (hydrocephalic). There is no human mind there; no actual life there. Just a beating heart.
You see, it is pejorative references to the enforceability of 'living wills' that frightens so many of us. Is the state of affairs such that I can write any 'living will' I want directing that I not be artificially maintained and yet you would feel somehow morally justified in overriding my direction once I was incapable of disagreeing? Do you believe that my 'living will' is somehow different from my traditional will and countless other legal documents and should be denied enforcement because you don't want one?
Imagine a culture of "forced" living wills and minimally testified to verbal statements.
I can not only 'imagine' but demand enforcement of my 'living will' against anyone who would imprison me as they have poor Terri for 15 years and sentence me to forced feeding and diapers. I truly have a 'right-to-die' if that is my wish.
No one has suggested a 'minimally testified to verbal statement.' There are three standards of proof known to our judicial system: preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing, and beyond a reasonable doubt. All of the statutes recognizing oral declarations of intent that I know of require clear and convincing (as was done in Terri's case). Nothing 'minimal' about the proof here.
I think for you to now reject the view that she is being denied ALL water and food is either self-delusional denial or intellectual dishonesty. I realize that it is the only wriggle room left to you, but I had rated you higher than either.
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.