I am not sure I do agree that Mr. Schiavo is sadistic. My take on him is that he was truly trying to do what he thought his wife wanted. I do, however agree with you that allowing Mrs. Schiavo's body to expire over such a long, drawn-out period was not in anybody's best interest. This was not Mr. Schiavo's doing, though; he did not make the laws which prevent true euthanasia (="good death") from being practiced in this country, other than in the state of Oregon. Do you think Terri was the only disabled person? When you talk about euthanizing her because of her disability, your argument applies to everyone with similar disabilities. What exactly do you think genocide is?
Is there one particular Jew you think should be euthanized for being Jewish? If you're only talking about one "specific instance," it's not really genocide, is it? Do you think that is somehow more offensive than advocating euthanizing someone for being disabled? Do you honestly believe that advocating euthanizing one person for being disabled automatically excludes everyone else within that group? And even if it does, does that somehow make it acceptable?
Here's an example of "discussing a specific instance," similar to the way you discuss the specific instance of Terri Schiavo.
"This person suffering from hereditary
defects costs the people 60,000
Reichmarks during his lifetime. People,
that is your money. Read 'New People'."
Can you find anything about that poster that you don't agree with? It doesn't advocate genocide. It's only "discussing a specific instance." It doesn't specifically state how the patient should be killed, nor even that he should be killed. Everything it said was true. It is still not an open, courteous, honest exploration of varying viewpoints. It is propaganda. Learn to recognize it, and avoid mimicking it.
I have seen people advocate genocide on this board. It remains to be seen if that's your agenda. Your initial posts certainly send up some red flags.
The reports of bleeding eyes and flaking skin were simply not true, so far as I can ascertain. I hope that eases your mind some.
I'll take your word over the doctors', nurses', and priests'. I feel much better now that I know that they all lied about the effects of dehydration. It's good to know that the photos I've seen of victims of dehydration were photoshopped. The cases of minor dehydration involving chapped lips and other signs of dehydration are all fake. Dehydration doesn't actually involve any drying out of membranes to the point of chapping, peeling, or bleeding. /sarcasm
Wild claims like that, in support of the euthanasists, are what drive us to think you are advocating their position. If you don't agree with them, why are you propagandizing for them?
If you'd like to see for yourself what dehydration really looks like, take a look at Lisa McPherson's autopsy photos. I'm not sure if I can post a link because of the graphic nature, but they're easy enough to find. If you can't find them, freepmail me for the link. There are at least two sets of photos. The photos of her hands, arms, legs, etc. are irrelavent to dehydration. You want the really graphic photos that show her face. You have to agree to certain terms before viewing those photos. Not the least of which is that you won't hold the site responsible for any long-term trauma you may suffer as a result of viewing the photos. After you've viewed them, come back and tell us how pleasant it was.
If you're going to demand that I believe you don't support the euthanasia movement, then I demand you give me some reason not to believe it. What is the best proof you have that you support the right to life? In light of your previous arguments against it, you'll need some very strong arguments in favor of life before I even begin to believe you.
If you have truly been attacked personally, and called names (as you claim), please report it to the moderators, and supply them with the links to the actual text. Otherwise, please retract your false accusation.
I can't decide if you are sincerely misinterpreting my words, or if you are willfully twisting them in order to indulge in more harangue. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and hit the high spots of your post.
Do you think Terri was the only disabled person?
I thought she was the only one under present discussion (though calling her "disabled" is a bit disingenuous).
When you talk about euthanizing her because of her disability, your argument applies to everyone with similar disabilities.
I said nothing resembling "euthanizing her because of her disability". My position, which I have not stated fully up till now, is that Mr. Schiavo sought,through appropriate channels, to fulfill what he believed to be his wife's wish to not be kept alive via tubes or other extraordinary means. That is a far cry from "euthanizing" someone because they are disabled. Though here again, I note that a liquefied, non-functioning cerebral cortex is miles, worlds, galaxies beyond being a mere disability. Regardless, and let me be clear here,
I do not think she was allowed to die because her cerebral cortex had turned to spinal fluid. I think she was allowed to die because that is what her legal guardian, and every court which heard her case, believed she would have wanted.
What exactly do you think genocide is? Is there one particular Jew you think should be euthanized for being Jewish? If you're only talking about one "specific instance," it's not really genocide, is it? Do you think that is somehow more offensive than advocating euthanizing someone for being disabled? Do you honestly believe that advocating euthanizing one person for being disabled automatically excludes everyone else within that group? And even if it does, does that somehow make it acceptable?
See above for my position on "euthanizing the disabled". Like any sane person, I deplore genocide, but allowing to die those people who have expressed a wish to do so under certain circumstances does not remotely qualify as genocide. I have to believe you know this, though for some reason you pretend you do not.
If you're going to demand that I believe you don't support the euthanasia movement, then I demand you give me some reason not to believe it. What is the best proof you have that you support the right to life? In light of your previous arguments against it, you'll need some very strong arguments in favor of life before I even begin to believe you.
I have demanded that you believe no such thing. It is unclear to me what you mean by "the euthanasia movement" (much less "euthanasists"), so I can't say at this juncture whether or not I support it. I believe that people should have the right to decide for themselves what medical procedures they would like applied to them, up to and including the refusal or withdrawal of nutrition and hydration under certain circumstances. This in no way translates to support for genocide or any of the other bombastic phrases you keep utilizing.
Likewise, the phrase "right to life" can mean many things, and I am unsure as to what you mean by it. Look, I'm not pretending to be anything other than what I have said I am. That is, what I have actually said, not what meme you superimpose on my words. I have said that I have a different viewpoint than you; why do you ask me to prove that I have the same viewpoint as you? What I want is to understand your position and how you came to hold it, and maybe share the same information about myself.
I really don't understand your continued hostility.
Peace to you,
Clyffe