Posted on 02/23/2005 1:02:48 PM PST by Alissa
You were imputing guilt to Terri's parents, and then when challenged you bring in this. How do you expect it to be understood?
He will get into a heckuva lotta dutch
I wasn't assigning guilt to her parents if you read what I wrote. They are carrying debt for something they had no control over. Reread my post, please and you will see.
Guilt, debt... you changing your story now that you've been called on your fallacious logic?
I stand by my point. You want to dance the "Semantic"? I'll leave you on the floor. My points have been consistent the entire thread.
You stand by a wriggleworm
"Telegram for you, your Honor."
"Eh? What does it say?"
"'Governor Bush sends his regards.'"
IF that's TRUE, it's TRUE because people MAKE it that way. It is NEVER a justification and/or rationalization for your own insensitivity.
"She's being used as a pawn, a fund-raising device, a rallying point."
On the above point we agree. Both she and Michael are pawns and are being used by the pro-euthanasia crowd led by GREER and FELOS.
It is my understanding that after removing the feeding tube it will take between one and two weeks for her to die. How can they justify such an action? It go's beyond comprehension.
It is lopsided, to put it kindly, to equate the two. Most pro life see what hino wants to do to Terri, as being an out-and-out abomination against God and all that is good. The euthanasia enthusiasts (there is no such word as "euthanasiasts") mostly couldn't care one way or the other what happens to Terri, EXCEPT for their cause.
then I shall claim the term "euthanasiasts" as my own and coined here tonight on FR as those who support euthanasia. Something similiar to polygamists in expression.
Goodnight prayer for Terri!
Many, if not most of the people who are opposing Michael believe that he is deliberately sandbagging Terri's condition, and that an honest examiner would conclude she was alive and aware.
What would you have these people do so as to be honorable in your eyes, given that failing to save an innocent, alive, and aware person from being killed when one had the power to do so is in and of itself dishonrable.
The problem is your use of artificial means. I am diabetic, I must take medicine or I will die. Is that artificial? I have no hope of being weaned of it.
Another problem is your use of survival. If there is no hope of survival, how do the machines keep them alive. I always understood survive to mean "continue to live". Do you have a new definition?
I am in this fight essentially for two reasons:(1)I believe euthanasia is evil and don't want to see it take firmer root in this country and (2) I want to help save an innocent woman's life. I think it well explains why MOST on our side participate, though I wouldn't doubt there are a few bad eggs involved for the wrong reasons. Some of us will continue to help the Schindlers for as long as it takes to extract Justice and LONG after the light of public attention upon this case fades, while others will move on to help someone else who is as sorely in need as the Schindlers are now.
I grow extremely weary and skepticle of the credibility and motivation of those who seek to equate the morality personal and otherwise, of those on either side of an issue such as this, particularly in cases which are as CLEAR CUT. There is NO MORAL EQUIVALENCY in this matter either when comparing the beliefs or examining the integrity of the players on the two opposing sides. It is no different than saying the Americans were as bad as the Nazis during WWII or are as bad as the Islamic Jihadists today.
Please see reply #578.
Florida's lazy lawmakers would rather sit back and let the issue force its citizens to the courts. When the courts decide what the legislature has failed to provide, public policy is up for grabs; with outcomes that hurt those most who have not the economic resources to achieve justice. This is because the trial lawyers want the economic benefit from such court action and would spend money on campaign contributions for lawmakers who make sure they do.
I see this issue having its dynamics tied to the elderly who have retired in Florida. It is an evil paradigm which causes these elderly to pull the plug on their spouses as soon as they find their savings going to expensive medical care procedures. This says that there has been a failure to protect the elderly as the costs of life-saving medical procedures have gone through the roof and exceed what their Medicare is able to provide. They have been put between the rock and the hard spot whenever medical costs go beyond their Medicare coverage and threaten economic disaster. This is where the web of evil is spun.
The Schiavo case represents legal precident that could upset the status quo and create shockwaves for the elderly. Rather than risk expensive legal cost trying to end the life of a dying spouse, many would leave Florida and travel to a more friendly state, like Oregon which permits doctor assisted euthanasia. That would be disastrous for Florida who wants these elderly to spend their lives and life savings in Florida. The entire things reeks of moral decay which has allowed expediency to replace the necessary decisions that would make the bartering of the dying for economic survival totally unnecessary.
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.