Posted on 03/18/2005 10:41:59 AM PST by My Favorite Headache
Greer gives order
Right to Die is easy to converty into Duty to Die.
It is the equal of saying that she has a duty to die so her soon to be ex-husband can go on with HIS life and his new child with another woman.
According to some medical testimony, Terri also could have something to live for if she received the therapy her husband has refused for ten years. But when you say it's different because a fetus has "everything to live for," you're on a very slippery slope. What if a baby is born with a handicap that is treatable (let's say cleft palate). Or even if the baby has Down's syndrome. Assume the father is unknown. The mother is a prostitute/crack addict/child abuser. Should the child be fed? Doesn't sound like that baby has much to live for. Yet who would support refusing a feeding tube for that newborn?
That is what I thought. He is trying to save his sorry a**..
She is not brain dead! Brain dead people do not react to sound, do not move their eyes to follow a balloon, do not shed tears when spoken to, etc. Where do you get your information, MSNBC????
What about a 6 foot 6 man throwing a tiny woman to break her back? How do you explain the broken back. This occurred when Michael was with Terri.
The hospice does not provide medical care as a hospital would. It is for terminal patients, which Terri is not.
Finally, Michael was given $2 million to care for Terri, which he has used to buy lawyers to kill her.
Michael has a common law wife as well as Terri and two children by the common law wife.
Except that's not the way it has been going. The FEDs have excerpted state powers all over the place. I can imagine the pandemonium on the left if this decision effected 1 of their pet ideas.
Well, you said it , "Keep alive."
...keep alive
The only alternative is...to Kill.
Kill...Murder...to unlawfully take a life.
Mercy killing... sounds so sweet, so good, almost like Pro-choice sounds to some people.
God bless America? The whole affair is embarrassing for the United States. Why don´t you guys have thought about these cases before? This is one of the cases where I am really glad that we inferior Europeans have a codified law and not common law.
I would not do it to my mother because she has living will. I would respect her wishes as she has clearly outlined in a LEGAL document. Terri has no such document. I've said things I didn't mean before.
Did they consider feeding tubes to be life support back then?
How helpful of you to decide Terri doesn't have anything to live for and could never recover, Herr Kommissar.
The fallacy of that entire argument ("Terri told me...") is that, in a criminal case, Greer would rule that second-hand testimony is hearsay and not admissible in court.
What about crack babies who will be born into abject poverty to women with criminal histories? A lot of misguided souls would believe that baby won't have anything to live for...
I am so sick to my stomach over this. I was just cheering about 1 hour ago because it was NOT going to be removed. How can people do this? I just don't understand it?
I can only speculate that if he were to divorce her he would no longer have the rights to her story. Those rights would go to her parents.
So is infanticide.
Always? Sometimes a child suffers serious, but not fatal, injuries while being born or immediately afterward. Princeton Ethicist Peter Singer believes the parents of such a child should have the option of killing a newborn within 30 says of birth. Do you agree? If not, why not, and how is that different from Terri Schaivo's case?
Thank you. I knew the answers. I wanted those who were born after us to see what sort of precedent might have been accomplished...that brought us to this day.
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!! GOD I HOPE SO!!!
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.