(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
I wouldn't want to live like Stephen Hawking either. Let's starve him to death.
Moved and seconded. Particularly in light of some of the mindless "killherkillherkillher!" crap posted here, over the last several days, by some (purported) "conservatives."
I can still remember when this was -- proudly; unashamedly -- a pro-life party.
Attention President Bush:It is now after 3 am. Terri has starved another day. If the sunrise comes and we have still heard nothing from the Clinton appointed judge, we can probably assume that no ruling will come from this judge, until after she is dead, and that he is acting to deny Terry her due process once again.
She can't have her day in court if she's already dead. You must act to save her. You must. Do you really want to let her die of starvation? You can liberate 2 countries, but you can't save the life of one helpless woman. A special prosecutor needs to be appointed and you need to wade into the corruption that is here. Please act, don't let Terri die.
What if Terri wants to live? Come on...get with it, David. This isn't about
Terri. It's about a court decision. If the courts decided she should die then we should just shut up and accept it. We don't have the cognitive abilities of these judges. Listen. Obey. Never question.
Because Evil really does exist, and Evil has a Majority in life. All the more reason for a Republic than a Socialist Democracy. After this, I am for putting the Church BACK in State.
The United Nations says more than 1.1 billion people around the world lack safe water and 2.4 billion have no access to sanitation, leading to over 3 million deaths every year.
There are a lot of people who want to play GOD. GOD will take her when he is ready, not when the cheating husband wants her out of the way, because he now has a "NEW" one.
We may not know what Terri's wishes are but we ought always to resolve them in favor of life. In the meantime we must fight on and as always pray a miracle happens for Terri.
****
It looks like Terri will be with Jesus by Easter Sunday.
She has willed herself to live all these years, yet judges have decided that she is not worth as much as a stranded dolphin.
My son-in-law's nephew was born with only part of his brain. He's now in his 20s and has had a feeding tube for years. I called my daughter yesterday and asked her why taxpayers should be paying to keep Greg alive? Why should ANYONE be allowed life support or a feeding tube?
"Why are so many eager to take her life?"
They usually say that it is because they themselves would never want to be a burden to anyone, and that that is the right, unselfish way to be, but that isn't it. The truth is that they never want anyone to be a burden to THEM, that they never want to feel obligated to put themselves out to care for anyone so helpless, and if they can push society to legitimize these so-called "mercy deaths", then they will never have to. This is the end road of the "ME" ethos, the "ME" generation, and it's very, very ugly. But to stop and re-consider the rightness of that ethos would call into question every choice and decisions in their lives of endless selfishness, and they simply cannot allow that. Hence, the passion of the fight for her death.
The very existence of people like Terry's parents, people willing to sacrifice themselves, their time and their money, their own desires, to care for their daughter, is a reproach to those who would never do that. Always remember, first the helpless are killed, then the godly. Just like Nazi Germany.
Actually, this comparison occurred to me yesterday in the spirited debates on another Schiavo thread here, but no one mentioned it. In the late 18th century (IIRC), many people became fixated on the risk of being inadvertently 'buried alive' by the funeral directors of that day. Thus, coffins began to be built with little cupolas extending above ground with little bells in them and a cord reaching down into the coffin so that the unfortunate could always wake up, pull the cord to alert people to his dilemma and thereby be rescued. Obviously, it never happened and the practice was eventually abandoned.
We may not know what Terri's wishes are but we ought always to resolve them in favor of life.
Insofar as matters known to human experience are knowable, we do know Terri's wishes. But your statement is unusual for what it implies: Even if we do know the wishes of the subject, "we ought always to resolve them in favor of life." That, of course, is what frightens those conservatives like me, who have had loved ones who needed enforcement of advance directives or who fear non-enforcement of those directives for ourselves.
Here is the Court's summary of the evidence which allowed it to determine Terri's wishes not to be artificially maintained to the very high 'clear and convincing evidence' standard:
"The court does find that Terri Schiavo did make statements which are creditable and reliable with regard to her intention given the situation at hand. ... Statements which Terri Schiavo made which do support the relief sought by her surrogate (Petitioner/Guardian) include statements to him prompted by her grandmother being in intensive care that if she was ever a burden she would not want to live like that. Additionally statements made to Michael Schiavo which were prompted by something on television regarding people on life support that she would not want to life (sic) like that also reflect her intention in this particular situation. Also the statements she made in the presence of Scott Schiavo at the funeral luncheon for his grandmother that "if I ever go like that just let me go. Don't leave me there. I don't want to be kept alive on a machine." and to Joan Schiavo following a television movie in which a man following an accident was in a coma to the effect that she wanted it stated in her will that she would want the tubes and everything taken out if that ever happened to her are likewise reflective of this intent. The court specifically finds that these statements are Terri Schiavo's oral declarations concerning her intention as to what she would want done under the present circumstances and the testimony regarding such oral declarations is reliable, is creditable and rises to the level of clear and convincing evidence to this court. (slip op. at 9)
Moreover, this is not a Christian/non-Christian divide. As a Biblical Christian myself (I use that awkward term only to differentiate my views from those who base their objection on RCC dogmas), I feel strongly that respect for life does not equate to "physical 'life' at any cost." Everyone retains the right to control their own physical fate, as the Bible tells us we each control our own spiritual fate as well.
I raise this because the article by David Limbaugh and your comment as well are silent on the importance of enforcing advance directives to end physical life when the conditions are irreversible and grave and the person has adequately expressed his or her wish to do so.
The only question in Terri's situation for conservatives is whether or not our judicial system has accurately determined her wishes in this matter in relying on oral statements. One can make an argument (though not a good one, I think) that the Florida court's determination of Terri's wishes is not accurate, but if it is accurate, then she must be allowed to die.