Posted on 07/15/2005 11:56:01 PM PDT by ElPatriota
I am a conservative. My brother in Law is a liberal. I am visiting them here in Florida and as usual we are having the samE old arguments. The SCHIAVO case poses a new disagreement.
I uas under the impression that Terry's parents **ASKED** for the custody of her daughter, as well as all finanacial responsabilities. (In other words, the government would NOT PAY FOR ANYTHING RELATED TO HER CARE)
My brother in law contends that he never heard the parents in any of the interviews he saw on the news - and they were many - ASK for FULL CUSTODY OF HER, AS WELL AS ALL FINANCIAL RESPONSABILITIES.
So help us, who is right? Me? Him? if neither, what are the facts? (please provide links or references to articles that support the correct position>
wow i hope this nathan guy isn't married. Best check if he has a large insurance policy on his wife. He sure loves this ideal of killing the innocent. I got to admit it does sound like an Nazi to me.
Emotion is the name of the game on Terri threads. Don't bother us with logic or facts. Reason has no place here.
Sorry newgeezer, one of your compadres already played that pathetic old tune on this thread.
Your message is as tired as an Al Gore stump speech.
Perhaps you'll address the issues posed by our founding documents' protection of the God-given and therefore inalienable right to life. If you're really brave, maybe you'll give us your thoughts on the passage I posted from the gospel of Matthew, chapter 25.
Or are you as illogical and fact-challenged as Nathan?
You say you "follow the gospel" yet advocate forcible dehydration to the point of death of living, breathing, human beings?
You are to Christianity what the IRA is to Christianity.
Repent.
I think so too! The 6th commandment is pretty darn clear.
Does that inalienable right to life mean a person has to endure whatever someone such as yourself decides to call a "life"? The court decided Terri's verbal living will was valid; for whatever reason, some people flatly refuse to acknowledge that simple fact.
If anything about this case is tired, it's all that nonsense about "murder."
If you're really brave, maybe you'll give us your thoughts on the passage I posted from the gospel of Matthew, chapter 25.
It's all very true. It's also irrelevant. When a person is found refusing food and water, is it our duty to force-feed her (and her duty to eat)?
Or are you as illogical and fact-challenged as Nathan?
My, how very gracious of you. As long as you're on a roll, go ahead and quote some more Bible passages for us.
I don’t know if she could have been cared for at home or if she needed more professional care. Even home care, if it involves RN and PT visits, etc. gets very expensive if private pay.
The larger point is that we should never debate the fiscal issue in the first place. Anyone who asserts that the disabled should be killed in order to save money should be rebuked. We should not give them credibility by debating that point.
Except for Terri Schiavo, of course, who was dehydrated and starved to death.
I think you're overlooking the fact that when certain people say "nobody," Terri Schiavo Schindler" and others like her" are exactly who they're referring to.
Very crafty of you. Trying to make out as if it is ME who is sitting in judgment of her 'quality of life', when it fact it is you and those like you who are doing exactly that.
You could have been a valuable member of Clinton's spin team with rhetorical shenanagins like that, newgeezer.
The court decided Terri's verbal living will was valid;
So, in your world, along with George Greer's world, hearsay 'evidence' of offhand comments of the sort made by many young people now constitutes a 'verbal living will'.
Such a ruling threatens the lives and liberties of tens of millions of Americans, since it is normal for young healthy individuals to make such comments, when they are seemingly not now even anywhere close to finding themselves in circumstances such as Terri found herself in.
...for whatever reason, some people flatly refuse to acknowledge that simple fact.
One of the dirty little secrets of the 'living will' crusaders is that folks who have written such documents when healthy almost invariably quickly attempt to change the most life-threatening provisions of those documents after becoming disabled; when it is in their power.
You see, they really didn't mean it, because their statements prior were totally based in gross ignorance.
Once they are disabled, they realize that even at a reduced 'quality of life', to borrow your phrase, that life is precious and worth living.
If anything about this case is tired, it's all that nonsense about "murder."
If you lock your dog in a closet and give it no water til it dies, you have irrefutably murdered it.
But a disabled person is less than a dog in this 'brave new world' you folks are creating for us all.
It's all very true. It's also irrelevant.
I should have known you would shrug off the completely relevant and straightforward words of Matthew 25. After all, if you can't read Article One, Section Two of the Florida constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution with understanding, why should you handle the scripture with any more intellectual honesty?
When a person is found refusing food and water, is it our duty to force-feed her (and her duty to eat)?
Another gross misrepresentation of the facts in this case.
My, how very gracious of you.
I feel no compulsion to remain gracious to those who are empowering the death cult with their rhetorical and political skills and energies.
As long as you're on a roll, go ahead and quote some more Bible passages for us.
If you insist.
"Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge." -Jesus Christ
Are you here to convince us that brain dead people are capable of all the same things Terri was capable of, and then some? Where do you draw the line between the right to life, and life unworthy? Are you above or below that line?
I remember the Schindlers making that offer. Michael de Sade refused the offer.
I'm still waiting for your science fiction explanation of how a dead woman was capable of so much interaction with her environment. Or maybe you can explain how her dead body continued to function for two weeks without any food, water, or outside intervention of any type.
I tried nothing of the sort. But, just two sentences into your reply, I've seen enough to confirm you're just another self-righteous emoter who cannot be reasoned with. You're obviously not interested in a civil discussion.
So, enough already. Buh-bye. Go spew your drivel in someone else's direction.
As if you are.
We've seen your posts on this subject before.
Anyone who hasn't let their emotions get the best of him would tell you my posts have been overly civil and well beyond patient when dealing with you people.
But, even if I they weren't -- and they have been -- have I been uncivil this time? You don't believe in a second chance, eh? You'd rather carry a grudge rather than bury the hatchet. You don't do the "forgiveness" thing, eh?
There you sit at your comfy keyboard, condemning me for no good reason. Nice, man, real nice.
You don't even see it, do you...
You just reek of civility, don't you...
This is tricky but I'll try to explain. You see, Terri died in 1990. Her memorial says so. She was brain dead in the next fifteen years. Nathan Zachary has said so several times in this thread. However, she had pluck. She had spirit. She had full capacity to make important legal, medical and moral decisions concerning her well-being and her future. Judge Greer said so.
Terri had a special knack for coming alive to agree with her loving husband. For instance, when Michael said that Terri wanted to die, Terri un-died, sat right up, and stated "clearly and convincingly" that she would rather be dead (again). She was already dead, so when she said that she wanted to die, it made sense to Judge Greer.
One day they came to her and said, "Terri, bad news. We have to force-feed you!" She was dead, but they thought she should know. Terri sat up again and said, "I REFUSE! I don't want your steenkin' water and food! Take off my feeding tube! I long to die in agony, so don't you dare give me any ice chips, either!" But they said, "Terri, you have to take the tube off yourself. We can't do that to you. That would be murder, even though your memorial says you died fifteen years ago."
But poor Terri couldn't take the tube off because she was dead and brain dead, so she solved the problem (as Nathan Zachary told us earlier) by starving herself to death in 1990.
I trust this makes perfect sense. The experts have told us these things.
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.
