Terri Schiavo - live or die, why do we even have to ask?

[Deacon]

[quote="bort";p="470068"]she is just being used as a pawn by politicians, and nothing more.[/quote]
Can you please explain this position, especially considering that they're really going against The People on this one, based on all the polls I've seen so far that show a majority (something like 60/40 most of the time) of people polled believed Terri should be killed. What you're saying there basically amounts to an unfounded accusation loudly spouted by Democrats that you're just regurgitating. Please think about such things before you go repeating them. Of course, I don't believe the people polled really had the information and knowledge necessary to really speak to the case, instead rendering judgement based on whatever they happened to hear about it in the news.

what i do care about is why the us congress is getting involved in this case, which has already been decided in the courts, over and over again. i think i know the answer, but i dont like it.

I think this was already addressed, wasn't it? Congress makes the laws that the courts base their judgements on. This is the system at work in the way it was designed. To me, this sounds like more talking point regurgitation.

my theory is that the republicans saw their 2004 victory as a mandate to push their social agenda on the us using any means necessary. if they think that, they are sorely mistaken.

I'm amazed at how people are trying to take pot-shots at Republicans on this case, especially considering the facts involved... Holy crap, the spin artists are masters of their trade It makes me sad to hear so many people buying it, too :/

As to your reference to Libertarians, you are aware the the Libertarian ideals do not jive with sentencing an innocent person to die, right?

As a libertarian, I support doctor-assisted suicide—but you're right, the Schiavo case is sick. If this woman can actually still speak (and her family wants to keep her alive, despite the state's wishes), the dictatorial Communists in the Democratic Party have finally revealed their utter contempt for all human life, not just babies. You'd think the lefties and feminists would fervertly support a woman whose husband is killing her for money and a new slice of tang...but no, Zero Population Growth is too important. If the Dems are so famously concerned about appealing to Middle America after Kerry was destroyed at the polls, what the hell are they thinking?

I'm looking at this case on libertarian grounds, not moral grounds—if a government official orders you killed even though you're physically responsive, the majority of your family wants you to live and you've committed no crime, that's despotism.

Dawn Eden has much more additional material on such instances of Libertarian views on the case. Her site is highly recommended as it also contains a bunch of non-political information and medical evidence of what's going on, etc.

Posted Thu Mar 24, 2005 10:11 am:

[quote="Korono";p="470086"]It is her life that's the most important thing. She can't ever wake up. Why not let her move on to whatever lies in wait after death?[/quote]
Your assertion that "She can't ever wake up" is unfounded, a topic of debate among experts in the field--experts who are very often wrong, because we still don't know enough about the goings on in the brain. Also, why would your default be death? It seems like a more pertient question would be, "Why deny her the chance to ever get better--especially as medical science and neurological science improves as time goes on--by killing her when she's allegedly not suffering at all now?"

And the right to die is depenendant on the individual and the doctor. But if the individual is unable to give the proper request, then the decision cannot be made for them, is how I see it.

So you agree, then, that Terri should not be killed? I'll leave this "right to die" silliness alone for now, as it honestly has very little to do with this case (since she never left instructions to invoke this alleged right, regardless).

[StruckingFuggle]

I'm amazed at how people are trying to take pot-shots at Republicans on this case, especially considering the facts involved...

Well, the GOP does have a list of talking points that was distributed to their senators about how to use this to push for part of their agenda ...

... as for your rebuttal-questions, I don't have time before class to do a really LONG post, so I'll get to 'em later.

[coyote blue]

I keep seeing on the news old footage of her moving around in the bed. I see her as a person. A human. Someone who is alive. I can't imagine killing someone simply because she can't do anything on her own. There are many people in the world who are paralyzed from the neck down. The difference between her and them? They can talk. She can't. But the people who cannot even move their arms.. This isn't meant to be mean, or anything, just an example. If people are saying it is ok to kill her simply because she can't do anything.. other then talking, what are the people who can't move a muscle doing?
She shouldn't die because her husband is a prick and wants her to. She shouldn't die because she can't get up out of the bed. She needs to be cared for like she should of been for a long time. It may be too late now, and if they somehow find out that she could of recovered better had she been receiving the proper care... burn her 'husband'.
Give the power to her parents. Let them decide what is best for their child. Not my choice. Not a doctor's. Not anyone's choice. Why? Because this woman is a human with rights. Next of kin is her parents. They raised her, they should decide on how her life ends.
And I do agree, starving someone to death is NOT right by any means. Hell, someone else do that to a person they would be in prison for murder. What is the difference?? If she hasen't passed on by now, maybe it isn't her time and people should be concentrating on helping her instead of killing her...

[Dregur]

Can you please explain this position, especially considering that they're really going against The People on this one, based on all the polls I've seen so far that show a majority (something like 60/40 most of the time) of people polled believed Terri should be killed. What you're saying there basically amounts to an unfounded accusation loudly spouted by Democrats that you're just regurgitating. Please think about such things before you go repeating them. Of course, I don't believe the people polled really had the information and knowledge necessary to really speak to the case, instead rendering judgement based on whatever they happened to hear about it in the news.

Actually, it's not only Democrats that are saying this either, in fact, several Republicans who voted against the act in the State of Florida are saying the same things:

"This bill doesn't belong here. This decision belongs between the courts and the family," said Sen. Dennis Jones, a Republican.

"To be kept alive artificially above and beyond your wishes and the wishes you expressed to your family — that is cruel and unusual punishment," said Sen. Jim King, also a Republican.

I think this was already addressed, wasn't it? Congress makes the laws that the courts base their judgements on. This is the system at work in the way it was designed. To me, this sounds like more talking point regurgitation.

Again, this is factually wrong. Several Republican congressmen (Dave Reichart of Washington for one) have said that it's a family matter, and should NOT be intervened by the federal government.

(*snip*)

I already answered this, it's not just a Democratic view.

Your assertion that "She can't ever wake up" is unfounded, a topic of debate among experts in the field--experts who are very often wrong, because we still don't know enough about the goings on in the brain. Also, why would your default be death? It seems like a more pertient question would be, "Why deny her the chance to ever get better--especially as medical science and neurological science improves as time goes on--by killing her when she's allegedly not suffering at all now?"

Are you a doctor? Seriously, what may or may not happen is NOT an issue here, no matter how you look at it. It's a case of Congress not liking what it's hearing from the courts, and trying to overrule the courts (and the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, as they said it's a state issue, not a federal one, and there are more conservatives on the bench than liberals)

So you agree, then, that Terri should not be killed? I'll leave this "right to die" silliness alone for now, as it honestly has very little to do with this case (since she never left instructions to invoke this alleged right, regardless).

You are quite right, the right to die does have little do with the case. Instead, it's whether or not it's a family matter, and whether or not the husband of the person has the right or not to decide on her healthcare or not. The courts have time and time again said that Michael Schiavo has the right to remove her feeding tube. The government has absolutely no right to disregard those decisions by the courts. Otherwise the checks and balances of the government are all for naught. The reprecussions if government got it's way would be huge.

[Korono]

I have done some reading up. It turns out that Mrs. Shiavo said that she wanted to be killed if she was ever in that state. Also, it is unfair for you to judge his reasons ro remarrying and fathering children. Also, there is no chance of her waking up. Shehas permanent brain damage. She's nothing more than a capsule now.

[Deacon]

[quote="Korono";p="470153"]I have done some reading up. It turns out that Mrs. Shiavo said that she wanted to be killed if she was ever in that state.[/quote]
First, your space bar seems to be broken. Second, no, we don't know that. If you'd actually "done some reading up" (even within this own goddamn thread) you would've known that there is no evidence that suggests such a passing conversation ever happened. The only reason anyone even thinks this might've been a possibility is due to Michael suddenly coming out and "recalling" a conversation he claims to have had with her at some point in the past--and somehow forgetting all about it until she'd been in that state SEVEN YEARS and...shocked gasp...after the malpractice suit had been awarded to him, etc.

As for Dregur's mind-grating post...I'll try to get to that some time today. No promises. It killed a little of my soul while reading it. The entrance exam for PACE is looking like a better and better idea.

[bort]

deacon: ill keep this short. the fact that some polls show that a majority of americans oppose what the republicans are trying to do doenst mean that its not a purely political move on their part. it means that the republicans are miscalculating and that if they keep acting like that, they will lose the support of the majority of americans, just like i said in my other post.

oh, and pretty much everything i said i decided on right after hearing just the basic facts of the story. so save your "propaganda" speech for someone else.

[Fixer]

I have to agree with Deacon in that I do not believe this is politically motivated. This is mostly politicians acting on their own conscience. They feel this is what they have to do to live with themselves. They are trying to 'save a life' with some legislation. I can see where they would think that, so I am not going to bitch too loudly about it at the moment.

Is it right that they do this?

I think it might be a waste of time, but I believe some good will come out of it as awareness of the issue has occurred. Perhaps now legislation can be passed so that cases like this will be less likely to occur in the future.

[Deacon]

[quote="bort";p="470165"]the fact that some polls show that a majority of americans oppose what the republicans are trying to do doenst mean that its not a purely political move on their part. it means that the republicans are miscalculating[/quote]
So you're taking it for granted that every politician who doesn't believe that sentencing Terri to death by starvation, many of whom are Republicans, is motivated almost exclusively by opportunities to pander to the public, and they're just totally incapable of understanding the concepts of both numbers and polls? You're assuming that every person who's coming down on the side of life is just as bad as those who are on the side of death.

oh, and pretty much everything i said i decided on right after hearing just the basic facts of the story. so save your "propaganda" speech for someone else.

So it's just coincidence that the limited and selective "facts" you were told about coincide almost perfectly with the left's talking points, almost word-for-word, and involved very little thought time?

[SunTzu]

Can someone with inside info tell me a few things?

1. Is her tube removed? If so, how long does she have till death?

2. How badly damaged is she? A total vegetable, only able to move around without conscious thought, or just badly retarded?

3. Are there anymore instances that can take up the question?

[virulus]

if you do not have a living will, then the doctors are supposed to keep you alive. its the law, at least where I live. A doctor CANNOT kill you on purpose. This is to protect people from faulty diagnosis.

I think she should live and I think the hubby should take a flying leap.

[SunTzu]

And yeah, that seems a bit strange. I mean, im all for allowing a person to choose to die, or letting their relatives do so, but the courts arent there to decide from what they think, they're supposed to follow the law.

I fail to see how this differates from just putting a bullet in her head.

[bort]

[quote="Deacon";p="470190"][quote="bort";p="470165"]the fact that some polls show that a majority of americans oppose what the republicans are trying to do doenst mean that its not a purely political move on their part. it means that the republicans are miscalculating[/quote]
So you're taking it for granted that every politician who doesn't believe that sentencing Terri to death by starvation, many of whom are Republicans, is motivated almost exclusively by opportunities to pander to the public, and they're just totally incapable of understanding the concepts of both numbers and polls? You're assuming that every person who's coming down on the side of life is just as bad as those who are on the side of death.[/quote]

no, im saying that this isnt about terri at all. to me, this is about congress overstepping its bounds and pushing its social agenda on people. the republicans think they can get away with it. we'll see if they can.

[quote="Deacon";p="470190"][quote="bort";p="470165"]oh, and pretty much everything i said i decided on right after hearing just the basic facts of the story. so save your "propaganda" speech for someone else. [/quote]
So it's just coincidence that the limited and selective "facts" you were told about coincide almost perfectly with the left's talking points, almost word-for-word, and involved very little thought time?[/quote]

yes... because there is no way that i could come to these conclusions on my own, just like plenty other moderate republicans have.

it is scary to be agreeing with the democrats on something, but if when the democrats are spouting republican rhetoric and vice-versa, its not so bad.

[Lunatic Jedi]

[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="470103"]Well, the GOP does have a list of talking points that was distributed to their senators about how to use this to push for part of their agenda ... [/quote]

"The Republican Party: we'll kill everything EXCEPT the fetuses and vegetables."

/me grins like the jackass he is.

[JudgeMental]

[quote="SunTzu";p="470212"]Can someone with inside info tell me a few things?

1. Is her tube removed? If so, how long does she have till death?

2. How badly damaged is she? A total vegetable, only able to move around without conscious thought, or just badly retarded?

3. Are there anymore instances that can take up the question?[/quote]

No inside info needed.

1. It's been gone since last Friday, pretty much a week. She could die within hours at soonest, days at most.

2. She is very badly hurt, though there is debate over how severely.

3. Not sure what this means...

And as for the government interfering... What did they do? They passed a bill allowing their case to go to federal courts. How, exactly, did they intrude on a family affair when they were welcomed with open arms by all except the husband?

Where is the ACLU when a poor woman's right to live is being utterly violated? Oh wait, that's right, there with that scumbag husband. They filed and got passed a restraining order against the Florida child and family protection services (can't remember exactly the name) to "protect Terri from the intrusion of the Florida government." Well, that's not an exact quote, but it's close enough. Governer Bush tried to gain custody of Terri. In spite of rather large amounts of evidence, including affidavits from several nurses, that Mr. Schiavo was abusive, likely contributed to her currect vegetative condition, and doesn't care about her current condition (Interview on Larry King paraphrase, "We don't know what she wants, but it's what we want.") and thus doesn't represent her interests. He lost.

Why is it that Republicans and Conservatives are made out to be the bad guys? We're not trying to invade a country, kills helpless millions, put spy cameras in your bathrooms, or instate a national ID card, we're trying to save the life of a helpless voiceless woman. We're not even trying to deny the so-called "right to die!" We're trying to preserve her right to live!

I saw an editorial comic yesterday that irritated me. President Bush is standing with a "feeding tube" through both ears (it was illistrated horribly incorrectly, by the way), and he's saying, "Yes I support the death sentence. But we must respect the sanctity of life." Apparently I'm to take that to mean that Bush is a hypocrite. Maybe he is, but NOT in that respect.

What is being said is this. It's OK to kill people who WANT to die. It's OK to euthinise those who's quality of life is poor. It's OK to kill a helpless woman because apparently an MRI shows she doesn't have any cognitive function, though family and nurses have described limited interaction and response to stimuli. It's OK to kill babies who's only crime is to be concieved, never mind that heartbeats, brainwaves, and seperate circulatory systems are established as early as nine weeks (I heard a clip on the radio today, I wish I knew who said it "We must not let the evidences of modern technology deter us from the fact that a fetus is NOT human.").

It is NOT, however, OK to execute somebody who has been proven over and over (I think the average Death Row conviction is appealed four times in federal courts...) to be a brutal and inhuman murderer. We can't kill those who destroy, maim, rape, and ultimately murder other humans. We can't deny the right to live to those who have so blatantly, evily, and cruelly violated others.

Support the death sentence or not, comparing the death sentence to euthinasia and suicide is comparing apples to oranges.

It sickens me that people can buy into death so easily. Death is everywhere. It's easy to come by. It can take anybody in an instant. Life is precious, rare. It is a tentative thing, nurtured carefully. Death is permanent, life is not.

It used to be we considered those who SAVED lives heros. What will today's politically correct hero look like? I shudder to think.