Please let me know if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
THE 'VAST LIFE-WING CONSPIRACY' AGAINST 'poor wittuw michael' SCHIAVO [FR Link page]
Broken bones, signs of strangulation, No CPR administered, the cremation outrage, and recent, hot: ACCIDENTAL CONFESSION ON LARRY KING?....And many quotes with info I was not aware of have been pasted there.
And a related one, also from Rush:
Right on Side of Life, Left on Side of Death
March 21, 2005
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_032105/content/mtcu.guest.html
Ping. Rush was great today. FReegards....
Not all choices are easy, and most are pretending this is a slam dunk.
ML/NJ
"The Left wants to kill her slowly so nobody can put the blame on them for the dirty deed."
True. It would appear that the husband has committed the perfect murder. I suppose next we'll just take a gun to someone's head and charge the family for the bullet, taking our cue from the other side of the Pacific.
Think she'll last until Thursday? Someone Else died on a Thursday.
Where's a good troop when you need one.
I am feeling very dark about this now.
Bear with me for just a bit:
I heard an interesting conversation about Terri's case at the hospital where I work. It went on for quite a while, but what it essentially boiled down to was: "I'm uncomfortable with the idea of starving the woman to death, but I'm suprised that the medical staff bothers to treat any of her (probably numerous) infections."
The idea being, I suppose, that death by starvation was gruesome and preventable, but death by sepsis was somehow more "natural".
Death, by whatever means, is ugly. The question before us isn't, "Is death terrible/ugly?" but rather, "By allowing this woman to die of neglect, are we doing the moral thing?" As a society, do we want to give our relatives the right to decide whether or not we die? And which of our relatives makes the decision?
Bear with me for just a bit:
I heard an interesting conversation about Terri's case at the hospital where I work. It went on for quite a while, but what it essentially boiled down to was: "I'm uncomfortable with the idea of starving the woman to death, but I'm suprised that the medical staff bothers to treat any of her (probably numerous) infections."
The idea being, I suppose, that death by starvation was gruesome and preventable, but death by sepsis was somehow more "natural".
Death, by whatever means, is ugly. The question before us isn't, "Is death terrible/ugly?" but rather, "By allowing this woman to die of neglect, are we doing the moral thing?" As a society, do we want to give our relatives the right to decide whether or not we die? And which of our relatives makes the decision?
Just as the left would never support a war that is in the vital interests of the US, just as the left supports convicted murderers but persecutes the victims of crime, just as the left promotes the evil in this world, but hunts down and kills the innocents...
Mark
Thank you for this post, gold state.
Rush has no trouble seeing on which side of the street the band is marching on an issue.
FReeper getmeouttaPalmBeachCounty_FL
Too bad FDR isn't still alive to add his voice to that of the entire liberal side of the spectrum. But what would William Jennings Bryan say, I wonder?
Please let me know if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
If you did this to a dog, they would lock you up. It sadly says a lot about our society.
I disagree, El Rushbo...
If Terri's feeding tube is not reinserted, she will die of starvation the same way a person or animal would die if locked in a room with no food available. It will be an act of homocide if Terri dies and her death certificate should accurately state the cause of death as 'starvation' as ordered by the estranged husband and upheld by Judge George Greer. Anything less would be a lie to humanity......
Last year, I also lost my mother and my only aunt to cancer. Both of them technically starved to death -- they quit eating and drinking, gradually. The doctors explained that, because of the advanced state of their cancer, it would be cruel to prolong their misery with IVs and feeding tubes. They were both heavily medicated because of the cancer pain, but the doctor at the hospice facility told me that my mother was also suffering the pain of dehydration and starvation. No one will ever, ever convince me that this is a painless, easy way to die. Nevertheless, I think that there is a vast difference between a terminally ill person and one who is not ill, but simply has suffered an injury that makes it impossible for them to care for themselves.
If the kind of injection that was given to my Polly had been available and legal for my mother, I'm sure that she, as well as I, would have happily chosen it for her instead of the slow and painful death by starvation and dehydration. But I never would have presumed to make that decision for her, no matter how much it hurt me to watch her suffering and be helpless to ease it.
I have to admit that I don't completly understand all the legal arguments on both sides of this issue. But in my heart I know that it is wrong to kill this woman. I just can't see where the harm is in letting her live. Who is hurt by that?