|
Who's the villain in the Terri Schiavo case?
|
Posted on 03/24/2005 11:50:52 AM PST by AZ Righty
Who's the villain in the Terri Schiavo case?
(49%) Her husband
(24%) The government
(14%) Her parents
(12%) The media
It is unfortunately the ones who claim to be on Terri's side that cannot see where this will lead. When we give to Congress the right to decide who should live, we are, by extension, giving them the right to decide who should not live. I, for one, do not want to start down that road.
Thats complete HOGWASH... Congress has said "we should ERR on the side of life". How is that giving them the right to err on the side of death?
|
Who's the villain in the Terri Schiavo case?
|
By your flawgic, people with pacemakers should be killed through dehydration.
"Yeah right. I'll bet they even can eat and have brains."
So your secondary requirement is that people have to conform to YOUR parameters to be 'fit' to live?
Seems to me a country tried that about 60 years ago.
excuse me. I forgot the /sarcasm. I figured you would understand it but...
Thanks for the ping.
BTW ... You also could do with some education on pacemakers and their purpose.
I beg to differ, it is NOT. Furthermore she can swallow, therefore doesn't need it.
Is Congress going to pass individual laws for each person who is in a persistent vegetative state and is being fed by tube and has no living will? I think not. When Congress starts CHOOSING, as it has done here, who it will help, it is also, by definition, choosing not to assist others.
Not True.
Catechism of the Catholic Church
2301 Autopsies can be morally permitted for legal inquests or scientific research. The free gift of organs after death is legitimate and can be meritorious.
The Church permits cremation, provided that it does not demonstrate a denial of faith in the resurrection of the body.
I'll end up dropping dead from myocardial infarction.
Anything else that may happen is 'pifflesquitch'.
After having buried my step-daughter, either way is a bitter choice.
Besides, I'm too stubborn for such to happen.
Pacemakers regulate heartbeat.
It is life support.
You would have everyone who uses 'life support' dead.
There are plenty of severely handicapped that cannot feed themselves.
Maybe in your world, we can set up a "life, not worth living" advisory board, who can decide who gets to stew in their own unflushed poisons.
"only if they must be fed as part of life support."
Lots of people require I-V's, sometimes for days, after they have surgery. I guess if they don't regain consciousness fast enough to suit their "guardian", he can have the I-V stopped to ease their suffering, is that right? I'm just asking; I'm no medical expert like some people here.
"Don't violate that marriage right."
And Michael hasn't violated Terri's marriage right, the one where she expected him to remain faithful "'til death do us part"?
He'd have Stephen Hawking killed.
****************
Exactly. We are fighting for her because she is a living and breathing human being.
If I'm not mistaken, the rights of Christian Scientists to deny medical intervention have been consitently upheld in court. If Michael had been a CS, Terri would have died quickly. I'm wondering if all the "right to lifers" have mounted any attacks against Christian Scientists who deny insulin to diabetic children? Isn't this your duty, or does the mantle of religious belief protect these people from your activitism, but not Michael?
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.
