A TERRY SCHIAVO case QUESTION????

[BykrBayb]

All it takes is an honest perusal here, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/user-posts?name=newgeezer . For those who are interested in going deeper, there is also this, http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22by+newgeezer%22+schiavo&btnG=Search .

You have stated that this was not about the right to life, but about who has the right to decide when someone else's life should end.

[newgeezer]

Come now, you can do better than that. Quote something I posted to support your charge that I am favor "forced euthanasia." Your second link should provide all you need.

You have stated that this was not about the right to life, but about who has the right to decide when someone else's life should end.

No, that's incorrect. What I have stated is this: While some insist the case was all about the right to life, I maintain it was neither a right-to-life nor right-to-die case. Instead, it seems to me that the Schiavo case was all about who speaks for a person when that person cannot speak for herself. I have also stated more than once that my take on the Terri Schiavo case is that there were two sides with two different stories about what her wishes were. Here, the court decided (1) a person's spouse trumps her parents, and (2) a spouse's testimony pertaining to a living will is as valid as a signed living will. Surely you, like me, want to honor Terri's wishes. You can believe me when I say I wouldn't want to end anyone's life against their wishes any more than you would. Period.

Now, about the living will... Do you believe every time a person is allowed to die in accordance with a living will, it equates to "forced euthanasia"? If your answer is an unqualified "Yes," I'll accept your "forced euthanasia" charge and we'll part ways now.

On the other hand, if your answer is anything other than an unqualified "Yes," you would be saying you are okay with at least the concept of a living will, and you still owe me a quote to back up your claim that I am in favor of "forced euthanasia."

I must say this is infinitely more enjoyable than the sniping. Let's keep it going.

[BykrBayb]

Your tagline used to be (fundamentalist, regarding the Constitution AND the Holy Bible, i.e. words mean things!) I see that has changed. You have advocated allowing Michael to decide that Terri had to die, and now you deny that's what you meant. Words do mean things, but for you, they mean whatever you want them to mean at the moment.

[newgeezer]

Your tagline used to be (fundamentalist, regarding the Constitution AND the Holy Bible, i.e. words mean things!) I see that has changed.

I still use it often, especially when it's relevant to the thread at hand.

You have advocated allowing Michael to decide that Terri had to die, and now you deny that's what you meant.

I'm still waiting for a quote. Now, you've added yet another charge. Where was I inconsistent? Quote, woman, quote.

Words do mean things, but for you, they mean whatever you want them to mean at the moment.

(sigh) Again with that kind of crap. Hurling insults and charges without anything to back them up. Any hope that you might be able to maintain even a basic level of civility was foolish.

My quest for those "rational people" you mentioned continues. Thanks for playing.

[BykrBayb]

In other words, the meaning of your words has changed, again. It would be refreshing if you'd support your own statements, instead of denying them. Your previous statements that Michael de Sade had the right to decide that Terri had to die no longer means what it meant when you said it. When it's convenient for you, it will mean that again. Have a nice day.

[newgeezer]

You keep regurgitating that line about how I made some statements and later denied them.

Yet, for some reason, you cannot or will not produce any evidence to back up your charge. To give yourself any credibility, all you would have to do is quote two contradictory statements. That should be easy, if such evidence exists. (You know it doesn't.)

Let me know when you have something. Until then, you're just trusting your feelings and emotions, and expecting that will suffice. Again, you act as if you're right simply because you're right. In fact, because you will not provide any evidence to support your charges, you reduce your own credibility to zero.

Furthermore, your tacit and steadfast refusal to provide any shred of evidence to support your growing stream of accusations makes you out to be a common liar bearing false witness against your neighbor.

Have a nice day.

Likewise.

[BykrBayb]

You already acknowleged in post 162 that you did not agree with those who said Terri's right to life was the relevant issue. For you, it was a matter choosing what other person had the right to decide for her. At the time you made that statement, it was pretty clear you were talking about her life. Now you claim your words no longer mean what they meant back then. What do those words mean now? That he had the right to speak in her presence, for her listening pleasure? That he had the right to be a ventriloquist, and "speak for her" in that manner?

I suspect you know how morally void your argument was, and would now like to pretend you never made that argument.

[newgeezer]

You already acknowleged in post 162 that you did not agree with those who said Terri's right to life was the relevant issue. For you, it was a matter choosing what other person had the right to decide for her.

You have a way of twisting words to your liking. Perhaps that's why you refuse to quote anything. At any rate, fine. Let's go with that. Someone has to speak for her when she cannot speak for herself, right? If I've been inconsistent there, tell me how.

At the time you made that statement, it was pretty clear you were talking about her life.

Okay, I was talking about her life and her right to live or die as she chooses. Any person can make a living will and have his or her wishes carried out. The only question left to be answered by the court was, does a spouse's testimony qualify as a valid living will. The court decided it does. Therefore, it ordered that her wishes contained therein be carried out. If I've been inconsistent there, tell me how.

Now you claim your words no longer mean what they meant back then.

Where did I make such a claim? Which words? What did they mean back then? Help me out here. I can only guess you're reading something into my words that they didn't say.

What do those words mean now? That he had the right to speak in her presence, for her listening pleasure? That he had the right to be a ventriloquist, and "speak for her" in that manner?

I still have absolutely no idea where you're going with this.

I suspect you know how morally void your argument was, and would now like to pretend you never made that argument.

Is it really asking too much for you to refrain from that accusatory crap just long enough to have a reasoned discussion?

I am being totally honest with you when I say I cannot comprehend where you are getting the idea that I have backed away from or denied anything I said before. But, you continue in your refusal to QUOTE anything. Assuming you are capable of copy-and-paste, find what I said and provide your own interpretation. I maintain I haven't denied a thing. SHOW ME where I'm wrong.

Let's start with the basics, one point at a time. If Person 'A' has a written living will which states he does not want food and water when it's determined he's in a state of PVS, would you be okay with his being allowed to die? Isn't that a valid, simple question? If you're totally opposed to the idea of a living will, just say so and get it over with.

[BykrBayb]

Since you have proven yourself incapable of finding post 162, and you demand that I copy and paste from it, here you go.

While some insist the case was all about the right to life, I maintain it was neither a right-to-life nor right-to-die case. Instead, it seems to me that the Schiavo case was all about who speaks for a person when that person cannot speak for herself.

You did not state that this was about her right to life. As a matter of fact, you stated the exact opposite. You did not state that this was about her right decide. You stated that it was about her estranged husband's right to decide for her.

Now you want to pretend that you meant something that is not indicated in your original statement. You claim that you meant the exact opposite of what you said.

[newgeezer]

Now you want to pretend that you meant something that is not indicated in your original statement. You claim that you meant the exact opposite of what you said.

Do you think it's even remotely possible that you're wrong about that?

Although the outcome ultimately decided whether she would live or die, the case was not about her right to life or her right to die. The CASE decision had absolutely nothing to do with her right to anything. No one's right to life was either helped or harmed by the decision of the court. No one was arguing in court as to whether or not any person has a right to life or a right to die. Neither of these rights was on trial.

What was on trial -- what this case put before the court -- was simply to determine (a) who speaks for a person when that person is unable to speak for herself and/or whether a verbal living will is a valid living will. Ultimately, the court's objective was to determine what were Terri's wishes in her PVS condition. In other words, did she have a living will, or did she not?

Once the court decided that Terri had a living will, it ordered her wishes as contained in that living will to be carried out. Therefore, her and my and your right to to choose life or death was preserved by virtue of the fact that the court was not deciding whether we have those rights; in fact, it decided because we do have those rights, the only question left was to determine whether and how she wanted to exercise those rights.

I trust you can see now how I have not backed away from or denied anything. My position has not changed. My words mean the same now as they did from the beginning.

[cycjec]

BTTT