Posted on 03/24/2005 7:22:09 AM PST by ConservativeMan55
Edited on 03/24/2005 7:43:21 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Mod note: Calls for violence will result in suspensions
Michael Schiavo has filed a petition with the Supreme Court asking them to stay out of the case.
So many doctors disagree with that. Here are a whole bunch of them blogging her CT scan. MedBlog Doc debunks and questions Terri's CT scan. Other docs comment on other problems with it. Great read! Scroll way down to "CSI MEDBLOGS: CODEBLUEBLOG ANALYZES TERRI SCHIAVO'S STARTLING BONE SCAN". There is now a brand new blog at the top stating unequivocally that Terri could not have had an anoxic infarction as has been reported all this time.
"I am pleased to see the rule of law and the sanctity of marriage upheld."
What about the sanctity of LIFE?
I cannot believe Antonin Scalia.
LOL, yes we can certainly hope and maybe even pray for that.
BTW, I agree with you on the Docs. My only point is that a cursory examination should not be enough for a court to order the removal of nourishment.
BTW, I hold your opinions in high esteem just like I do Tories.
That we often disagree, as do I and Torie, is neither here nor there.
Oh, they could elicit cognitive function if they tried hard enough? Look at the legal definition of PVS that I posted above. It says there must be an absence of cognitive function of any kind.
So don't tell me about all the motions of due process that this case has had. The judge, Judge Greer, has ignored the law, he has broken the law and he has snubbed his nose at the law with his pre-emptive injunctions against the State removing her from Woodside.
The whole case is tainted and is crapola. The judge is crapola.
And they obeyed the petition.
First and foremost - Terri is not living on life support. She is merely being fed and given water. She breathes on her own, for example, and is not unconscious. Thus, we do not have her opinion, even orally, as to what to do in this peculiar instance as it is NOT on life support. What is more, is that some of the medical experts cited on this forum do not agree with Persistent Vegetative State diagnosis.
Second, it's very cavalier of you to suggest the court is making the decision for the family in their own interests. Apparently the family does not agree.
Third, you are disqualifying the family's opinion based on consistency, as if Michael Schiavo continuing to call for her to die gains more weight merely because he hasn't shown any nuance or hesistancy in his position. This is sophistry - what's right is right, even if the family has contradicted at times.
All in all, it appears you are willing to tie the law into as many knots as so pleases you, so long as Terri dies. Nothing in the world will make it right, and your arguments are too feeble to shake anyone who remains rational. I am disgusted that you and your kind are going to such lengths to defend this horrific action of starving and dehydrating a woman to death who you cannot say with certainty wants to die. I reiterate - all you can do is reassert that the Florida court thinks she wants to die, but the evidence is too paltry to be certain, and furthermore the Florida courts are suspect because of Judge Greer and the generally dubious behaviour we saw exhibited since the 2000 election.
Even so, it looks like Terri is going to die. You won. You pro-murder folks have your pound of flesh. Enjoy it. But again, nothing, absolutely NOTHING will make it right.
Ivan
I am absolutely sickened and enraged there are people who call themselves conservatives who are cheerfully living with the idea that this woman has been murdered by judicial fiat. Any friends of mine who support this murder are my friends no longer - they can go straight to hell.
Regards, Ivan
If it comes to be that the doctors are all over the map, with no real consensus out there, then I think the President is quite right that there must be a presumption in favor of life. If it is not now clear that she will never return, then she should be maintained until such time as it is clear, and consensus exists. Unfortunately, the law as it now stands interferes with that end, and prevents that end from coming to pass. The law is broken, and it must be fixed, but that cannot be done by judges. I cannot be so cavalier about the law as to argue that judges who ignore it in favor of their own personal presumptions are just fine, so long as their presumptions coincide with mine. That way lies madness.
If there is someone home there inside what's left of her body, and you want to know the truth about who killed that someone, the truth is that we all did. All of us. You, me, everyone. We killed her by failing to elect legislators with the moral fortitude to repair the law in a timely fashion, in such a way as to prevent this death. We killed her by not electing Congressmen with the fortitude to pass a bill that actually does something, rather than Congressmen who simply pose for the cameras and pass a do-nothing bill that punts off to the courts, where they knew her case would founder on the law as it currently exists. If Terri Schiavo is alive and aware, we all have blood on our hands, and it will take much work to remove that stain. If it can be removed at all.
I was talking about unelected Federal Judges acting as gods. I was not talking about the President or Governor who have to answer to the voters.
"Here I am again, standing by the letter of the law, while others argue that the law should be interpreted to their "liking".
Can I ask a question? What law are you referring to here?
I know the truth when I see it general.
Read what Scalia wrote in the Cruzan decision:
"The various opinions in this case portray quite clearly the difficult, indeed agonizing, questions that are presented by the constantly increasing power of science to keep the human body alive for longer than any reasonable person would want to inhabit it. The States have begun to grapple with these problems through legislation. ...the point at which life becomes "worthless," and the point at which the means necessary to preserve it become "extraordinary" or "inappropriate," are neither set forth in the Constitution nor known to the nine Justices of this Court any better than they are known to nine people picked at random from the Kansas City telephone directory; and hence, that even when it is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that a patient no longer wishes certain measures to be taken to preserve her life, it is up to the citizens of Missouri to decide, through their elected representatives, whether that wish will be honored."
Scalia argued in Cruzan that cases like this should be decided in state courts under state law; that the U.S. Constitution is not involved; and that federal courts shouldn't hear these cases.
Yeah.LoL. Hadn't heard that one.
I agree with general_re, you're a good man, John :-)
Amen to that. I was ready to run out into the uber-liberal streets of Montpelier today and start screaming "Killers, you f'ng liberal monsters!" I don't do things like that but I felt like it. And here we see the same kind of unfeeling mind-numbed monsters as the libs. Nazis. I don't even want to hear anyone say that is an overused inflated stereotype. That's what we've got.
:-}
They got their pound of flesh and they're still at it. God help us all. It's as if there are indeed cracks in their conscience which do allow them to discern the truth, but they hope to drown it out in a sea of sophistry and citing court documents.
I agree with you about the screaming. Believe me, if the Dark Side of the Force was real, I would have crushed some Florida Court Buildings at a distance with it.
Regards, Ivan
So, are you equating the tyranny of George III with the Terri Schiavo situation? Shame on you for trivializing the reasons for our American Revolution.
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.