Posted on 03/25/2005 10:28:48 PM PST by FairOpinion
I think all people who are inconvenient should be killed, immediately. Not enough money for Social Security? No problem! Round up a few million recipients and snuff 'em! Too many senior citizens driving? Well they can't drive, if all they are, is ashes in the car ashtray, can they?
And we now know that slowly torturing someone to death is the preferred method of execution. The Nazi's had it all wrong! Gassing people quickly is cruel -- but making them slowly waste away from starvation and dehydration is compassionate and loving.
I'm a brand-new convert to this exciting new way of thinking.
I guess you see no distinction between a convicted murderer and an innocent woman, who is being killed for the husband's convenience, on much less than reasonable doubt about her wish and condition.
The travesty is precisely that a convicted murderer is allowed endless appeals, while a disable woman isn't.
"Calling people "death lovers" is so over the top, it made me laugh. "
====
Why, what would you call people who are cheering the fact that an innocent, disabled woman, who never heart anybody is dying a terrible death by thirst and starvation?
I think calling them death lovers is actually an understatement. Calling them "lovers of killing and killers" is more accurate -- after all the same people who cheer at Terri being put to death, want to protect terrorists and convicted murderers from death and discomfort.
Allowing her body to shut down the same way bodies have been doing for thousands of years, is not cruel or inhumane. Injecting a lethal dose of poison to assist death, is not acceptable. Just ask Dr. Kervorkian.
Isn't David Limbaugh, as an attorney, considered an officer of the court? Does that make him a court jester?
!!
You left lawyers.
so sad
"Let me also ask you to consider this: What if a person had a living will stating she did not want to be kept alive if she ever became brain damaged with limited cognitive functions, but once she arrived at that state, expressed a desire to continue living? "
What an excellent point!!!!
Let's review that we are not living in a Culture of Death.
To say otherwise is absurd.
Hope this helps.
The crux of their argument is that she is PVS which they have refused repeatedly to be changed or challenged and as such cannot feel pain, so in their world she does not have the neurological capacity to suffer when starving.
Which to me says if she is feeling nothing, then why not let her live in the care of her parents. She will not be suffering by Michael's sides' own definition.
So? Who does? Are they killing somebody just to make the point that we should create yet another legal doc that will still have to be adjudicated?
"she left no living will"
So? Who does? Are they killing somebody just to make the point that we should create yet another legal doc that will still have to be adjudicated?
===
I think we have a misunderstanding -- the point is that unless a person leaves very specific instructions in writing, a "living will", that they don't want to be kept alive artificially and under what circumstances, NOBODY should have the right to just "terminate" them.
The "living will" is a misnomer, though the official terminology, it is really a "dying will".
Whatever the living will says, so shall the State require be done. I wish to die on Mars. That is my living will. Get to work; make it so.
Yes. Especially when court appointed guardians are allowed to overrule any family members wishes. or even any "living will" stating they don't want to be starved to death.
The courts are wrong. They have set aside all questions of the morality of the deliberate killing of an innocent.
Terri Shaivo chose her husband to be her surrogate. She made that decision with a sound mind and body. That decision was made when she married Micheal Shaivo.
Terri Shaivo isn't guilty or innocent. But she is a pawn for the "right to life" cult, the cult that likes to use such terms. What she is is a poor women who is mentally and physically incapacitated. And is being allowed to end the captivity her vegetative state which traps her. She once had a normal life. If she, in some way can still remember any of it, I’m sure it’s only a reminder of the torture she suffered during the last 15 years.
Yes, I agree starvation is cruel but we are left with no other humane alternative since there's a crusade against the relief of such suffering all for sanctity of life.
Those who like to perpetuate suffering are easily spotted, they like to throw around labels like "culture of death."
Where ever did you hear all that? I have watched two people taken off life support under the care of Hospice and they were peaceful at the end. I didn't even see the 'swollen tongue' they talk about.
This may help:
1. Hand that person the Holy Word, known to some as the
Bible.
2. Ask him/her Open the Book to Genesis 1:1.
3. Let him Read it from start to finish.
(Of course, you need to pray while he/she's doing this.)
Uh, I'm not sure that really answered the question.
But I rather like the end of your answer!
Hence their problem.
It WOULD be murder and they know it.
How can you starve and slowly dehrydrate a living NON terminal girl who is Aware, Smiles and Feels Pain? It's not like she was terminal, unconsious --had cancer or had other pains. It's a lousy feeding tube!! That's it! Do you know how many mentally retarded people in group homes accross the country are in worse condition? Get a grip! This is outright murder....
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.