[Normally a Lurker]

How many pet owners do you know that try to sustain thier pets via feeding tubes, when their poor health has left them unable to move and to eat?

The term "putting it out of its misery" when referring to an animal is generally taken sadly, but positively - as the proper thing to do. It seems that many here take great delight in trying to sustain Terri Schiavo's misery.

[isthisnickcool]

I've seen recent videos of her laughing. And reacting to those around her. I've read sworn statements submitted by nurses to courts that say she is not a "vegatable". And that she reacts positively to those around her. I 've read statements from just this week where her dad said she responded to him.

Unlike an animal that has no soul she is a human being. Unlike an animal that is property she is not. Unlike an animal that may be put to sleep because the owner no longer wants to deal with the animal there are people willing to take care of her.

As far as her being "in misery" please prove that. And that anyone here wants to sustain the supposed "misery"

People are not animals. You might think they are but I don't. Thanks for helping me prove my point.

[thulldud]

So, to take up your parable here, whose "pet" is Mrs. Schiavo?

Certainly not yours.

Your comment seems to imply that you see no essential difference between people and livestock. If that is the case, be prepared to earn your keep with the herders (whoever they may be).

[TigersEye]

It seems that many here take great delight in trying to sustain Terri Schiavo's misery.

How do you know she's in misery? For that matter who isn't? She is said to be a Catholic. If she has awareness she can spend her time in prayer. If she were a Buddhist she could still do practice. She seems to enjoy visits from her mother.

Animals can't pray or ever have one thought of enlightenment or salvation even when they are healthy. When they are completely immobilized from injury or sickness they have nothing left but fear. That is not true of the human mind.

[MHGinTN]

You vacuously asserted, The term "putting it out of its misery" when referring to an animal is generally taken sadly, but positively - as the proper thing to do. It seems that many here take great delight in trying to sustain Terri Schiavo's misery. Make up your empty mind, either she has awareness and thus should not be 'put down' or she has no awareness and thus has no 'misery. You 'killum and move on' twerps can't even maintain the trend of thought you raise to defend this gross miscarriage of Terri's Constitutional rights. That's the usual process with a litany of lies, with the goal of dehumanizing to defend destroying.

[dasboot]

Putting aside the evidence that Terri may have been the vistim of foul play at her hubby' hands, she was the aggrieved party who won $1,6 million-dollars to mollify her pain and suffering.

The hubby paid half the award to a scumbag lawyer who saw to it that hubby wouldn't have to blow the wad on his wife...just put her in the Hospice where she could receive minimal care and fade away. He hid the remaining money and presented himself as indigent to the state to receive government medical payments, with the lawyer's (and probably some insiders at the state offices..or their hands were tied) help. Complaints by the family were addressed by a judge who has a conflict of interest. Hubby stands to collect a large sum of insurance money upon Terri's death. She won't cooperate. He can't divorce her, and he can't relieve himself of custody--give her over to her parents--without losing his shot at megabucks.

The issue here is not right-to-die claptrap: it's an issue of criminal conduct under the rubric of "compassion".

Clearly, there is substantial evidence for this scenario. It must be investigated. Apparently, this scheme is is a regular feature sold by the hospice provider and this attorney, Falos, to "suffering families".

If the above is all BS, there is time to put it away; but the actions of the parties who stand to be indicted are telling me that there's fire under the smoke.

Terri has the right to live, her parents have the right, to care for her: some folks pay to freeze themselves hoping for a day where they can be re-animated. The allegorize, Terri is a "wanted child". There's also a price on her head.

If the husband were truly compassionate, he'd divest himself of interest, divorce Terri, and get on with his life. If, as it is stated, she is PVA, she's not suffering, and will not suffer. That's a load of crap.

If, as is countered by medical docs and testimony of folks who have worked with Terri, she is aware...this is an injustice most vile.

[trustandobey]

Okay, how many pet owners do you know that when the vet says there is nothing he can do, says let me take it home and starve it?

[NYer]

* It seems that many here take great delight in trying to sustain Terri Schiavo's misery.*

Terri Schiavo is not in any misery. When her father told her that hubby had won court order to remove her feeding tube, she tried to climb out of her chair. People do awake from these states. The brain is the least understood organ in the human body.

Mother wakes up after 16 year coma

[Avoiding_Sulla]

Alerting all Pro-life FReepers. Have you caught on yet? I am rushing this to post before the thread deterioriates,

Please don't be too hard on NL. Just in case you haven't noticed yet, he's helping you set up your arguments against the deathists by immitating their tactics. I think we owe him or her a debt of gratitude.

Yes, his statements are nasty about you and your motives all while acknowledging no bad motives against Michael and his lawyers. But what could Terri-life advocates expect in court against Terri-death advocates? That Michael will end up doing what all Perry Mason bad guys do in the last 5 minutes? Not blooming likely.

Starting with NL's number 63, we have some very fine examples of our opponent running free and loose with mixing your words with his own, and then twisting them against you.

Let's start.

We generally don't try and sustain pets because we don't have the same moral paradigm for them as for humans. We just don't employ the same traditional efforts to save an animal from death as we do humans (when thinking clearly).

So, in #63, we encounter the first error of NL. He writes as if a majority can be assumed to have replaced our moral code to coincide with that of Professor Peter Singer's at Princeton U -- that animal and human lives should be treated as equivalent.

I bet you didn't sign on to that, but nobody called him on the assumption.

Animals are humanely put down, but our TRADITIONAL moral code does not permit us to do that to fellow human beings.

I have catalogued how the "Progressives" have been trying incrementally to change our principal paradigm, without your consent, by trying to slip past your awareness, and by confusing issues (as their agents and fans are doing in this case), for quite some time.

That's what our efforts are all about in this case -- PREVENTING THE NEXT STEP in the incremental retreat from our cultural linchpin: PROTECTING INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE.

[Avoiding_Sulla]

(Continuing my analysis of NL's tactics as he teaches us all what we are up against.)

Also in post #63, NL's second & third errors are compound ones. Here NL asserts that 1) Terri is in misery, and that 2) we who defend her life delight in her misery.

"It seems that many here take great delight in trying to sustain Terri Schiavo's misery. "

This is NL's tribute to the smarminess of our opponents. You must congratulate him in his verisimilitude of their performance.

Several of you protested the misery, but as far as I saw, didn't contest his assertion of sadistic behavior. Then NL repeated it at #93, and complained of you all calling him names. Now, wasn't that precious? He assigns sadism to our motives from his very first appearance (#63) and then complains of him being labeled himself -- he has got the trolling pattern of our opponents down pat. He's trying his hardest to get you to notice by repeating it, silly people. So? Notice already!

At 99, tigerseye call NL on the misery question in #93, but adds the term "know" -- and then at #103 NL takes advantage of this addition to deny his two previous assertions (at 63 & 93). Yes, we know he did assert that Terri is in misery, but no, he didn't assert that he "knows Terri is in misery."

Also at #93, he throws in a second ad hominem in addition to the sadism charge -- seeing us as the reverse of "kind souls." Great job NL. Very hard to distinguish these words from Barbara Boxer's.

NL did this for our benefit tigerseye. Please thank NL appropriately. (To be continued)--- regarding the way at #123 NL dismissed concern over Michael's motives while accepting from the start his unconfirmed witnessing of Terri's choice of treatment under these circumstances. Stay tuned.

NL is simply a goldmine. Keep digging.