Posted on 06/15/2005 12:27:19 PM PDT by veronica
You seem to be glad Terri Schiavo was murdered. Good for you.
Anyone who cares that much about human life is much worse than a "twit." What you are I cannot say in open threads without being banned.
She has no right to do that! YOU have no right to do that!
You must be kept alive at all costs -- even if it drives your spouse into bankruptcy. Your spouse must suffer the financial and emotional burden of caring for your hopelessly brain damaged body, despite your wishes to the contrary.
Besides, we all know that she's after your money and we must look to your best interests to make sure that only the hospital and the lawyers get that money (by filing lawsuits insisting on repetitive and costly MRI and PET scans, separate reviews by 15 doctors, useless therapy, and the like).
And here you thought you had a right to privacy.
I think we can all agree with that. And I certainly appreciate that this thread did not get out of hand, and that adults debated an important issue calmly and rationally.
I couldn't have said it better!
Animal people consider injections much more humane than letting the animal wilt away over time. And for some centuries, indeed, shooting a horse was more humane than just letting him gradually die.
Yes, by God, I would prefer it that way, if I HAD to choose how to execute an innocent person.
But the real choice was between letting her die (by neglecting her, no less) and letting her be cared for by her family.
In which the latter is ALWAYS my choice.
You're implying their real desire was to kill her off themselves? How absurd a comparison (fictional as it is) is that? Ridiculous.
Don't be ridiculous. That isn't even the point; their desire to care for her rather than kill her off is. But if "their manner of care" were - what makes you think they'd always be insisting on stuffing things down her throat thru her mouth?
Do you think a man who supposedly loves his wife would ask nurses, "When is that bitch going to die?" and engage in unusual behavior (e.g., forbid his wife to have even the most basic care)?
This case had red flags all over it from the word go. At the very least, Michael should have had his guardianship permanently withdrawn and Terri's care placed in that of someone impartial. The fact you and others here chose to ignore that speaks volumes about how you measure humanity and compassion.
What if Terri had put her wish "not to live that way" on paper instead of orally? Still morally wrong?
True judgement has been used for ages, esp. understood in the long-past days of the Republic. Concern about the SPIRIT even above the LETTER of the law should be paramount. Otherwise, you'll start behaving like Clinton. "I didn't lie when I said I never inhaled." The ass knew the concern is using drugs at all, never mind exactly what he did w/them!
Ah! I see. YOU get to say when man can kill you, but not Terri.
Why is that?
I agree; I think the ME must've done a good job. I don't see off hand anything wrong w/what he's done. If anything, it puts both parties into question depending on which aspect you're discussing.
That's a pretty sweeping statement on your part. Care to back that up?
Untrue. She had intense therapy, and repeated testing. Her condition was determined to be unrecoverable.
When? By whom? Was it before or after the malpractice settlement?
The one group of people during this whole case that were consistently dishonest and consistently told us things that we now know were not, and could not have been, the truth, were the Schindlers and their mini-armi of lawyers and Randal Terrys.
"Hopefully, the rest of us can agree to disagree without resorting to threatening hate filled posts."
That tends to be the last resort of somebone who has lost the argument.
That is an outrageous thing to say. Why do you think they would do something like that? Because they felt their daughter was still alive and they wanted to take care of her? What in the hell is so wrong with that? Do you have even the slightest idea what the hell you are talking about?
Nothings changed. There are those of us who oppose the state ordered killing of American citizens who have committed no crime and then there are those that support it.
Amen.
I stated this much earlier, but it seems to me the judge way back lacked judgement and let MS continue his path w/no solid evidence himself about even any "wish to die". So not only was this all morally wrong, but it was legally questionable from way back.
Oooooh. That's going to leave a mark.
Hey, ClancyJ, better put some ice on that.
Oh good grief. The 'manner of death' was purposeful starvation and dehydration.
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.