Posted on 02/25/2005 9:19:53 AM PST by LaFlorida
"...What is the motive behind the restaurateur turned physical therapist turned nurse who passionately pursues his wife's death? Many wonder. Could Michael Schiavo be a pawn, a pawn in a much larger game being played for much higher stakes?"
(Excerpt) Read more at missionsun.net ...
It is about spirituality.
Do you believe in God and Heaven?
Do you personally think that she will go to Hell, and that is why you are fighting so hard to keep her body alive? By keeping the body alive, she will not go to Hell?
If so, then I can understand why you and others are fighting so hard to keep her body alive.
"Unless you have an medical idea that can restore her physical body, you are not helping her."
Yes! You have the right idea! We should starve every sick Christian to death so that we aren't holding them back from God!! /sarcasm
The point is that she CAN eat by mouth and is not allowed to do so. Also, a person swallows 1 1/2 to 2 liters of saliva a day and Terri swallows it. She does not drool.
Interview With Dr. Hammesfahr: Startling Revelations
"Terri's feeding tube is for the convenience of nurses; not because Terri needs it. Terri does not drool. Liquid is the hardest thing to swallow, and she swallows 1½ to 2 liters of saliva a day."
It would really behoove you to inform yourself about the facts of this case. It's obvious from your foolish statement that you know nothing about it.
She can eat anything she wants! All she has to do, is eat!
OUTSTANDING!
Then she should be taken to the nearest restarant and allowed to eat to hear hearts content. I will personaly pay for her restarant bill!
Or, are you being a little deceptive?
Artificial...as in food and water? Then you're also alive artifically.
Hunble...you're not listening. He won't LET her eat. Do you understand now? She can...he won't allow it.
"by using artificial methods."
It's a feeding tube for crying out loud. It isn't keeping her lungs working or keeping her heart beating.
By your logic nobody should ever get a pacemaker or have artificial respiration during a lung transplant because if God didn't want them to die then He would make it so those things aren't necessary.
Does this mean that cancer patients who can't keep down solid food because of treatments should be allowed to die? Terri's feeding tube is no more "artificial life support" than a saline drip during an operation is.
I think it may be the case that you haven't been following the story and don't know that what they want to do is to STARVE her to death, not to take away a breathing machine. If that's the case, I hope you will read some of the articles about her and go to her site and find the truth about what she is and isn't capable of doing (she is sometimes awake and fairly alert, and she breathes on her own, she just can't eat, drink, and communicate verbally). I speculate that the reason she is still unable to do these things after so many years is not because her body cannot do it, but her "husband" will not allow anyone to teach her to use her body again.
Either you are a genuine Heretic (of the 'Soul-good/Body-bad') variety, or you have lost your mental faculties.
Either choice is not good...
Not at all. That's public info that I gave you. That's why Terri supporters are so passionate. She CAN eat normally.
Unfortunatly, I have followed this case for way too long.
If I was an athiest that did not believe in life after death, I would agree and support the efforts that many Freepers have done.
As someone that firmly believes in a life after death, I consider it a travesty for this poor woman. Let her be with God in Heaven today, and stop her suffering.
Your concepts of spirituality and God are obviously different from mine. I can and do respect that.
I have stated my beliefs as to what is best for her spiritually, and firmly believe in it.
So, please do not attempt to call me ignorant on Terri Schaivo.
"She can eat anything she wants! All she has to do, is eat!"
She can't feed herself if she isn't given food and can't force her hands to put the food in her mouth. But it isn't her fault that she has been denied the treatment to try and fix those problems.
How about if we sever your spine so you are immobile from the neck down, put you in a hospital room with no food, and tell you that if you want to live you will find some way to feed yourself. Would you survive? I'm not saying her spinal cord is severed, I'm just saying her body doesn't work right for the time being. And that is because her "husband" will not let anyone take proper care of her.
FANTASTIC!
Send me her restarant bill, the next time she eats a good meal.
LaFlorida, I'm with you. It is very suspicious.
If it won't happen, it's because Michael Schiavo as her "guardian" has refused to allow Terri to have therapy that would enable her to feed herself.
Every one of your posts shows a great deal of ignorance. Have you ever visited anyone who is brain damaged, and in rehabilitative care?
I have. So I know that it takes effort, time and patience to teach a brain-damaged patient to re-learn to eat from a spoon. But it very often can be done. Not only that, but speech therapy for patients like Terri often helps them to articulate their thoughts.
But even if a person cannot feed himself, so what? Babies can't feed themselves. Stephen Hawking can't feed himself. By your logic we should just let them die of thirst and starvation.
Before embarrassing yourself with more uninformed posts, you need to read this:
Brain-Damaged Woman Talks After 20 Years
|
My friend, I would love to but you'll have to get Judge Greer to allow it. She's now not allowed to eat by mouth. It's an order by the judge. Where has common sense gone?!
That has been my theory for quite some time.
"As someone that firmly believes in a life after death, I consider it a travesty for this poor woman. Let her be with God in Heaven today, and stop her suffering."
You are stepping on your own toes. If God wanted her dead then He could just take her, could He not? You think He would rather she be starved to death? We cannot begin to understand God, we can just try our best to do what he wants. If He wanted her to die and go to Heaven as much as you say then He could have taken her years ago when whatever did this to her happened, could He not? Is God not powerful enough to do that? Of course He is. He doesn't NEED us for anything. But that doesn't mean that He doesn't see His will carried out in His people. Perhaps the reason that Terri has survived this long even after being ordered murdered in 2001 is a testament to the fact that God's will is not for her to leave earth right now. Perhaps HIS will is for her to make a full recovery and do something important through this situation. But even so, the judges and her "husband" do not CARE about God's will, so they are trying to use their free will (God given, btw) to kill her. Will God stand in the way of that decision? Possibly, but not necessarily. Like I said in a previous post, God does not always stop bad things from happening, therefore we cannot assume that everything that happens is God's will.
The Bible says that God would that all men would come to Him and be saved (His will). But He doesn't force that on any person. From that right there we can assume that God's will is not always carried out. Especially when certain aspects of it are in the hands of fallible men. God has the power to stop all this and either take Terri home, or make her well in spite of the court and her "husband". But just because He has the the power to see His will done, does not mean that it will be done. So, with me, your argument that if He wants Terri alive then nothing can stand in the way of that does not fly with me. Because He wants us all to go to Heaven, but all of us will not.
I hope I have conveyed my point clearly. I rambled on and it's very wordy, but I needed to say it.
Show me how much money he gets. I'll be waiting.
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.