Posted on 03/27/2005 1:30:00 PM PST by Gondring
Terri has been dead for 15 years. Now sadly her body 'lives' on as a pawn in a political game.
Umm...she ain't dead. She will be in a few days however. Until then, stop saying she died 15 years ago. This statement is self-evidently false. Give it a few days, then you can cackle about her destruction, and dance around some pyre of death and rejoice in her starvation. Until then show at least a modicum of humanity and respect.
A human being does not exist for 15 years nor with five of that being in Hospice if they are dead. The game you see being played out is not "political" but the future to how we as a society deals with our handicap, infirm and the weak.......We have already decided when God Creations can be born, now we take away God decision as to when he calls us home. Political game? You only wish it was only that... I do not want to be in the shoes of those that mock God.....
How often a couple has conjugal relations is a "marital affair". Spending too much money at the beauty salon is a "marital affair". Leaving the seat up is a "marital affair". Killing an innocent person by starvation is not a "marital affair".
Also, there was no hearsay in this. Another propaganda point.
Better study up on your law of evidence before making ignorant pronouncements like that. When a witness offers testimony as to a statement made by another person, and that other person's statement is offered for the truth of its contents, that is hearsay. In this case, there is no first-person record of Mrs. Schiavo's wishes. Mr. Schiavo and his brother have offered their testimony as to what they allege Mrs. Schiavo said to them, and are alleging such to be the truth. That is the very definition of hearsay.
Spouses often "stand to gain from [a spouse's] death"...shall we just treat them all like they're criminals, in absence of charges or conviction?
Not necessarily, but when a witness has an interest in the outcome of a proceeding in which he is offering testimony, that interest must be factored into the credibility of the witness.
What this underlines is the importance of both filing your wishes, as well as respecting the wishes of others, so you can know yours will be respected.
What this underlines is the sad lack of respect for life in our society. Nothing more, nothing less.
Stupid, just plan stupid. You never cease to amaze me, Sinkspur. What could "standing" possibly have to do with an act of civil disobedience? "Standing" is a legal term giving someone the right to bring a civil or criminal action. Everyone is way past that now. The discussion is civil disobedience. If you don't know what you're talking about...just shut up.
As far as the Pope's statement on nutrition and hydration, what exactly is your answer to the question posed? You say you agree with the Pope, but then you equivocate by referring to your seminary as a counter magisterium I guess. My impression from this Texas 2-step is that you don't believe in the Pope's statement ("it is not an infallible statement, you see") and that you think the boys over at your seminary got it right.
Wondering if you would be so kind as to tease out this special extra-ecclesial teaching of your seminary masters as well. Might be of interest to all.
I do think it was dumb to get up in a press conference and say "We have the authority to take custody," and then wait for the judge to issue a restraining order before acting.
That said, he made a serious and protacted effort to work within the legal framework, corrupt as it is, to save Terri. He deserves credit for that.
I can't say exactly what I would have done in his position, because I'm not in his position.
I would say, though, that if he would have chosen an extralegal avenue, he would have been morally justified, and I would have fully supported him in that.
It was illegal to protect Jews in Nazi Germany. Thankfully, there were many brave people who did so in violation of the law.
Absolutely no comparison - as any person with a modicum of intelligence knows. How clueless do you have to be to even make such an argument?
This is the problem with the left: no perspective and no reality check. Another example: they condemn those of us who are anti-abortion yet pro-death penalty. Do they not have even a clue? In one case a harmless, helpless baby is being cruelly and senselessly murdered. In the other case, justice and righteousness is being implemented.
Liberalism is definitely a mental disorder.
Oh please. My grandmother declined rapidly after bypass surgery. We held out hope UNTIL her kidneys failed. At that point, the body builds up toxins that will eventually kill. Kidney failure as part of a serious illness is usually an indication that a person is close to death.
No surprise that The Guardian tries to equivocate a truly ill elderly person with Terri's situation, but it's completely transparent to most.
The GUARDIAN removed someone for anti-Israel bias? She must have been truly outrageous in her reporting, LOL!
Halleluja, brother. And as St. Augustine said, "An unjust law is no law at all."
While I am at, I am going to get physically ill if someone opines one more time that this is a nation of laws. What nation wasn't a nation of laws? Our founding fathers broke laws. They broke the laws of their Sovereign, the Kind of England. Without such "lawlessness" we wouldn't have this "nation of laws." They fought and died for the proposition that there is a higher law than mans' law.
The idea of a higher law, natural law, what have you, has a long tradition in the Western world. I think there comes a time when people have to draw the line. I think this sentiment is perfectly compatible with the beliefs of our founding fathers.
Umm...I meant "King of England". He was not very Kind.
You should direct your comments to Terri's dad, Robert Schindler who "took away God's decision" as to when to call his own mother home by pulling the plug on her!
Walking man, there is a difference, if you have reason enough to understand.
His mother was dying. Terri Shiavo, as we all can planly see, was not dying. Schindler's mother died from her underlying disease. Terri is dying from starvation.
I am tired of dictator loving, backstabbing crackpots, telling me what to do!
Are you dancing around the pyre of death for Schindler's Mother???
You know:
THE ONE HE PULLED THE PLUG ON????
Umm, the article said nothing about pulling the plug. She was dying, Walking Man. It sounds like they elected not to use extraordinary means. My guess is that she was given food and water until she died. Terri is being starved to death. She is not dying from any underlying disease, she was not in the throws of death. She was alive. Now she is being starved to death by the state.
These people are definitely trying to compare apples and Fords.
So it was OK to sit back and watch her die, without lifting a finger to help her?
I want to know if this is the official position of the right-to-life movement!
Is this the official position of the RCC and its leader??
I want to hear Dr. Kennedy, Dr. Dobson, Pat Robertson, Rush, Hannity and Savage say that it was fully justified to let Robert Schindler's mother die but somehow its different for Terri who has been brain-dead and PVS with no hope whatsoever of recovery for 15 years!
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.