Schiavo - The Justice System’s Tomato
This whole Terri Schiavo thing is just sad. I heard someone say that in America, dogs and terrorist prisoners get treated better than she is being treated right now. For me, it’s just another example of how much we can’t trust the media with political agendas and how our humanity is hardly as good as Oprah would have us believe. Why is there still a question if she is a vegetable or not? It seems like it would be pretty easy to find out or not.
Whether she is or not, all these “good” people would rather see her die a painful death than admit that there might be a higher calling to preserve life. They fight the idea of God with humanism, calling what they do the right and humane thing to do. IMHO, it would be better to just shoot her in the head than starve her to death for 2 weeks. Oh sorry, it’s not “starving to death” but just “removing all sources of nutrition and hydration.” Even an idiot like me can see that there is a huge difference in having your heart or lungs being sustained by machines than just having a feeding tube. Does that mean that people who have to have dialysis are technically on life support?
And what the heck good are judges with political agendas? Judges are supposed to see through the spin and decide what is good and right. Sadly, now they ARE the spin. Since everything is about the seperation of church and state now, they no longer feel they answer to God but assume they are God in their intrepretation of U.S. law - and in the process, they make examples out of you and me.
March 21st, 2005 at 12:59 pm
oh that whole dog and terrorist thing is such hogwash, get hannity off your ear!
if your dog was to be in a vegetative state and the only means of keeping it alive were by a feeding tube… please as if you want fluffy to be in a vet hospital being fed by a feeding tube for $1000/month just so the kiddies can come by and pet her… it is the most ridiculous analogy i have ever heard.
The folks in washington just want to parade terri around up there… I really should start a website… pimpingterri.com and list all the people that are just pimping her for votes and money.
oh and this video they keep replaying of her moving… ya the family shot 4 hours worth and only came up with about a minutes worth to edit down that they replay for you daily over and over… haven’t you noticed there is no new footage?… ya ok..
let her die in peace already, 15 years isn’t enough for everyone? What they want to keep her in a bed for another 20? 30 years?
March 21st, 2005 at 3:36 pm
I think the point is that you would get arrested for animal cruelty if you “removed all forms of nutrition and hydration” from your dog. I’ll quote my friend Eric from a post on his blog.
March 21st, 2005 at 3:42 pm
amen, let her die in peace. lisa, my wife, has explicit instructions that she is to let me die. if i am in a comma or in a vegitative state let me go. this world is not my final destination and i want to go home. plus lisa could use the the life insurance money.
also this isn’t about her life this is a family squabble. we need to stay out of it and so does congress and the florida legistlators. the state courts who have juridiction have ruled. nothing good ever comes from getting triangled into a family squabble.
March 21st, 2005 at 3:53 pm
Look, if it’s about the family, the only person who wants her dead is her husband, who’s off with his new girlfriend and having kids with her.
What’s the difference between this guy and Scott Peterson? (Never thought I’d find any meaning in that spectacle.) He was convicted of murdering his unborn son - who really only died from “removing all sources of nutrition and hydration.”
Also, in the Peterson case, Laci’s mother said at the trial, “You could have just divorced her - you didn’t have to kill her.” The same goes here. If this Schiavo guy wants out, I say, let him out.
Are we really living in a day that prefers murder to divorce?
March 21st, 2005 at 4:04 pm
-she isn’t a baby
-it has been 15 years with no apparent recovery
-a machine feeds her gastrically
-medical experts provided by parents were paid for, you get the obvious opinions
-how many more unconstitutional laws do the politicians need to keep passing or trying to pass?
-this is the husband’s decision not the nations, he is acting according to terri’s wishes. How is anyone but him and God to know different? If he is a liar, then God will deal with him.
###########
“The perceptions of pain and suffering are conscious experiences; unconsciousness, by definition, precludes these experiences.” Since it has concluded that PVS patients are unconscious, they also “cannot experience pain and suffering.”
#########
Paul Brophy was an energetic middle-aged fireman in Massachusetts who entered a persistent vegetative state with no believed chance of recovery. Opposing viewpoints between his family and his doctors on how to deal with his condition sparked what may be the first legal case on the right to die.
Paul Brophy sustained a devastating basilar artery aneurysm rupture with tragic neurologic consequences. Following the rupture he entered a persistent vegetative state with no chance of recovery. As he was unable to chew or swallow, a gastrostomy tube was eventually inserted into him to allow for nutrition and hydration.
Later, when it was obvious that there was no hope for even a modest degree of recovery, his family requested that his gastrostomy feedings be terminated, a request based on the fact that Mr. Brophy had verbally indicated that he would not want to exist in such a degraded state. However, the hospital, New England Sinai Hospital, denied the request, leading to a series of legal actions.
While the first court to hear the case agreed that Mr. Brophy would have wanted the gastrostomy tube removed, it refused to authorize its removal, principally because he was not terminally ill. However, when the case went on further to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, transfer of Mr. Brophy to another hospital facility that was agreeable to removal of the gastrostomy tube was authorized.
Mr. Brophy died a number of days later, making him the first American to die after court-authorized discontinuation of artificially supplied nutrition and hydration to a comatose patient.
##################
The human body must always be respected‚Äîin death and dying as well as in life‚Äîbecause the person who was, while on earth, the image of God functioned as God’s representative through that body. But the prolongation of biological life in the apparent absence of personal life is not mandated by the Christian principle of respect for life. Because equipment is available to feed a body does not mean that it should always be used. Some who oppose withdrawal of artificial feeding tubes are unwilling to have such devices connected to themselves or their loved ones in the first place, if their prognosis should be for a prolonged and permanent vegetative state. This unwillingness to connect feeding devices reveals that such persons actually agree that whatever may be used to prolong bodily existence is not always morally obligatory. If it were obligatory, no upright person should ever hesitate to connect artificial feeding equipment to a loved one who would by this means be enabled to live possibly many more years, if only in a vegetative state.
In Christian ethics one’s intention is always a key factor in determining the morality of a given action. To disconnect the feeding tube from a PVS individual must never be done with the intention to kill‚Äîto take a person’s life. Our attitude and intention should be that of turning the individual over to God’s providence, allowing the condition to take its course. Yet‚Äîas with many conditions judged “hopeless” by human standards‚Äîwe may hope beyond all reason for hope that God will yet quicken the loved one if that would honor him and be best for the patient. Even though we may be quite reasonably assured that the individual’s personal life is over, we may hope otherwise.
F. Edward Payne, a member of the Ethics Commission of the Christian Medical and Dental Society, agrees with the decision to pull Nancy Cruzan’s feeding tube. He adds, however: “I do not agree with the decision not to feed her by mouth after the feeding tube was pulled.” Payne admits that the difference between these positions may seem small, but he considers it to be morally significant. He sees the continuance of mouth feeding as necessary “warm, personal care,” whereas artificial feeding is medical treatment and is not required when it no longer benefits the patient. In a few PVS cases, individuals actually swallow oral feedings. To disconnect the artificial feeding, while still attempting to feed the patient by mouth (even if such is unsuccessful), is to balance the desire for the patient’s miraculous recovery with the desire for the body to be in as natural a condition as possible while physiological death approaches. One can “play God” by technologically prolonging death as much as by hastening death. The position presented here is not euthanasia, which is best defined as any action or omission which by intention causes the death of a supposedly hopeless person in order to end the person’s suffering.
We cannot deny that there is some risk of error in bioethical decision-making. The lines are not as sharply drawn as we would like. Our admittedly difficult but not (by God’s grace) impossible task is to steer a right course on the one hand between an excessive devotion to biological existence as the highest of all values and on the other hand the disrespect for human life that discards anyone‚Äîin the womb, newly born, or elderly‚Äîwho does not measure up to an arbitrarily established level of intelligence or value to society. It is of course always best to be on the safe side. Wisdom calls us to err on the side of keeping someone physically alive when the spirit may be gone rather than risk killing a person. But consider the magnitude of the problem. As indicated above, there are thousands of PVS individuals in our medical institutions. Every elderly person who does not succumb to a quick death faces the prospect of having his or her life artificially prolonged. As Schemmer states: “The potential of our technological nightmare has got to end somewhere, and the only way to end it lies in courageously making some decisions concerning it.”
This is not to say that as Christians we are compelled to make morally wrong choices at times in order to avoid greater difficulties in the future. Sin is never necessary for the Christian. Decision-making, however, is necessary. If the PVS condition can be shown to be total and irreversible, and if the loss of personhood can be considered death in a theological sense, there appears to be strong support for disconnecting artificial feeding. Those who intend to keep their PVS loved ones sustained by mechanical means are making one choice, and it should be respected. Similarly those who, after prayerful and careful reflection upon the issues in the light of Scripture, in keeping with the law, decide to withdraw nutrition and hydration are making another choice. This, too, should be respected.
March 21st, 2005 at 4:06 pm
oh please… he is acting upon his wife’s wishes. Obviously his wife wouldn’t have wanted him to wait around 15 years, especially after only trying to do what she asked.
If Michael did not care for her, he would have taken the $11 Million in cash he has been offered to simply walk away and give custody to the family. That argument is moot.
March 21st, 2005 at 4:11 pm
There’s something rather curious happening in the media. For years .. for over 15 years … she has been known as Terri Schiavo. Check the legal proceedings: Terri Schiavo. In the Pinellas County (Florida) Circuit Court decision that started the latest round of controversy she is referred to as Theresa Marie Schiavo. Now, however, you will see more and more newspapers and websites, especially those who are sympathetic with the anti-abortion movement, use the name Terri Schindler Schiavo. She has never been known as Terri Schindler Schiavo .. never. But now that’s the name some news outlets are using. Why? To give added legitimacy to her parents in this controversy.
March 21st, 2005 at 4:32 pm
Esh,
Do you really see this as a cut-and-dry case?
March 21st, 2005 at 4:47 pm
I see it as none of our business
March 21st, 2005 at 4:49 pm
OK, but you would at least have the decency to euthanize the dog, instead of killing it slowly.
The husband got a court order to prevent further video taping.
So, family members should take their guns out in the back yard and have a duel or something? This exactly why we have courts and legislators–to resolve disputes.
Because we have a system of, by, and for the people, people get involved when the system is broken (often through judicial activism).
March 21st, 2005 at 4:53 pm
You would have been a good German in the early 30’s.
March 21st, 2005 at 4:57 pm
As Esh would have made a good pre-Pearl Harbor American.
March 21st, 2005 at 4:57 pm
That seems pretty na?Øve to me. He has way too much at stake to take any amount of money now. The fact that there is too much publicity for him to take the money now does not mean that he wouldn‚Äôt have taken it in the beginning. I‚Äôm not saying I know his motives, but I don‚Äôt think you do either.
March 21st, 2005 at 5:03 pm
- Under the current legal system you cannot euthanize humans.
- The court order was present before they taped it. They released it breaking court order.
- Your duel thing is irrelevant and i pasted that from boortz. The system has spoken.
Eric: As for your personal attacks against me by calling me a nazi… please try and respect other peoples opinions without resorting to ad hominem attacks
March 21st, 2005 at 5:04 pm
oh please… he could live in the caribbean away from it all on $11 million
March 21st, 2005 at 5:04 pm
what a popular topic
March 21st, 2005 at 5:12 pm
Esh, I didn’t mean that as a personal attack, and I wasn’t likening you to the Nazis.
I am saying that it was the same kind of passive attitude toward a government that is out of control that allowed the Nazis to rise to point of WWII. If we sit back and let activist judges make our laws, we’ll get the government we deserve.
Sorry it didn’t come across the way I meant it. I think debate is healthy. Name-calling is not.
March 21st, 2005 at 5:21 pm
This really has no correlation to the nazis or the 1930s. “activist judges” there have already been cases in the past dealing with this exact issue, this judge is just upholding that decision, as how our legal system works (common law, and that was supreme court level).
It has more to do with marriage and the rights of marriage more than anything else. If the government can take away rights of custody from a husband then where will it go next. Think about that…
March 21st, 2005 at 5:43 pm
C’mon esh. Give yourself some room to save face. There’s no point being a hardheaded fool about this. I’m not saying you should be wishy-washy. Just please don’t act like “none of our business” is a compelling bottom line.
You said: “If the government can take away rights of custody from a husband then where will it go next. Think about that…”
OK. But if the government can take away our right to not be starved and dehydrated to death at the convenience of another, where will it go next? Think about that.
And “rights of custody?” I don’t view that I have “custody” of my wife. And even then, since when does custody carry with it the right to euthanize through neglect?
Fact is, I’d be very interested to hear a compelling argument in favor of letting Terri Schiavo die. That’s why I asked if you really thought it was cut-and-dry. For my part, I don’t see it as that black-and-white of a matter… but in the absence of perfect clarity, I go to the simple things: life over death, for example.
Another simple truth: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” By contrast, your “none of our business” attitude doesn’t quite cut it in the face of an issue with such gravity as this.
March 21st, 2005 at 6:04 pm
Just because my opinion differs from yours doesn’t mean I am a hardheaded fool. That was clearly an ad hominem attack… but whatever… I guess we can’t have a civil discussion.
ok fine I will present an example:
- We will presume you are a male married to your wife (woman).
## BEGIN #####
One day while sitting on your couch watching an A&E drama movie, the movie presents a situation where a woman is placed in a incapacitated state, there is no hope of recovery and she is placed on a life-support system (yes, like it or not, a feeding tube is a machine and is supporting life, don’t try and kid yourself it is not life support it is supporting life). After the movie your wife turns to you and says “honey promise me if something ever happened where I was placed in a position like that you wouldn’t keep me on life support and would do everything possible to keep me from that state.” You agree and say you wouldn’t let her be a vegetable. You never really got around to actually making a living will.. you are young after all.
Fast-Forward—> 8 years later, your wife is in the house and has a sudden heart attack, the heart attack causes severe brain damage and renders her into a persistent vegetative state. She is no longer able to survive unless she is fed by a machine. After keeping her on the machine for several years it becomes apparent there is 0% chance of recovery, you had hoped and prayed but eventually several doctors have told you it is going nowhere. You can keep her on life-support indefinitely or let her die in peace. You keep your promise and decide that it would be selfish to keep her here against her wishes supported by a machine. When you inform the family of your decision based upon your wife’s wishes they take it upon themselves to get the world involved in your life and your wife’s wishes and make it look like you are the biggest piece of trash that walked the earth. Several legal battles ensue, all of which you win. Yet the people and government choose to ignore their own laws and attempt to create laws just to stop you from doing what your wife wished. People are even trashy enough to offer you $10 million and $1 Million in cash to give up your wife, as if she is for sale or something as if they knew her, as if they were married to her, as if they had endured 15 years of pain while your wife lay in a persistent vegetative state, as if they were sitting on the couch with her when she told you that she did not want what is happening to her she wanted to let nature take its course in this situation.
## END ###
March 21st, 2005 at 6:54 pm
Esh, you are awfully sensitive for someone who dishes it out like you do.
You set the tone for the comments by insulting David. Then you referred to those intervening on the parents’ side as pimps.
March 21st, 2005 at 7:25 pm
Judicial activism is responsible for the shift in our legal system from a sacred view of life to a utilitarian view. It is only that utilitarian view that makes this whole debate possible. It started with the court’s overstepping in Roe v. Wade, and has continued to where we are today. We now measure someone’s right to live or die by our perception of the ‘quality’ of that life. This is essentially utilitarian.
We now have prenatal tests so that parents can kill off unborn children if they are likely to be disabled. We are following Europe toward legalizing euthanasia. We have politicians and actors advocating harvesting embryos for their parts. Where does this end? Why not raise sibling for their bone marrow—or heart or liver. Maybe paraplegics are not worth keeping alive. How about kids with Downs Syndrome?
You may say that we are not considering those things in this case, but once we cede the utilitarian view of life, any limits are arbitrary and open to the whims of the times.
March 21st, 2005 at 7:32 pm
Esh, stop digging!
I never said you were foolish for having an opinion that differs from mine. It was not an ad hominem attack. It was an opinion that you were headed down that path because of the way you engaged the debate (I’m right, you’re wrong, end of story) - not which side you were taking. Persuade, don’t preach.
Also, discounting or dismissing opposing remarks by deriding them as violence against civil discussion sounds like a refuge of somebody who either cannot or will not answer with substance.
Let me show you what you’ve done.
You’ve grown impatient in this discussion - simple back-and-forth on a friend’s blog. You’ve tried to dismiss real arguments with nothing more than a flippant “none of your business” and “no fair” when people dare to challenge your position. At the same time - addressing an arena much larger than this little forum - you’ve been advocating a position that basically amounts to a convenience killing, with not even so much as a recognition of the fact that there are two sides here.
There’s a narcissistic theme of “what is expedient” over and above “what is right” or even “what does love require” to everything you’ve shown about yourself here.
If you regard that as ad hominem, so be it… but you might consider a different approach next time.
March 21st, 2005 at 7:48 pm
Sensitive? I never personally attacked anyone here. Re-read every one of my comments. I never insulted David, I insulted Sean Hannity and his radio show the other night they were talking about how this compared to dogs and cats and terrorists. I explained how that comparison is hogwash. It was a logical refute of the comparison. If you knew me… you’d know i’m not a sensitive person. I’m very insensitive, perhaps this is why you all disagree with my opinion so much?
Yes I referred to those taking advantage of Terri’s situation as pimping her for votes and money, which is exactly what they are doing. I did not accuse any of you of such things did I? I did not “dish out” any such comments on you nor anyone else here. I don’t see those politicians posting here?
suddenly we are on abortion… red herring. It doesn’t relate well at all. Back to the issue which was first being discussed please.
If you want I can let my eyes glaze over and murmur along with the rest of the crowd “save terri”
March 21st, 2005 at 7:56 pm
- I am trying to represent the other side, I have looked at it from both sides as well.
- This is not the first forum I have discussed this entire topic on relentlessly.
- The “none of your business” post holds water in my opinion, because I don’t think this is any of our business. The media makes it so. 1000’s of feeding tubes are removed each year.
- I never said anything about expediency, but it is clear she has been in this state for 15 years
- I am replying to all of your points but noone is replying to any of mine it would seem.
- I did discount the ad hominem attacks and then I replied to those that were not. I provided examples, did you not read them?
Hugh: you said “C‚Äômon esh. Give yourself some room to save face. there‚Äôs no point being a hardheaded fool about this.”
You tell me I need to save face and I am a hardheaded fool. What isn’t a personal attack about that?
March 21st, 2005 at 7:57 pm
ok… I have to agree with esh here. Here are the basics.
1. The Husband is claiming he knows what Terri wants. Fact is, we have to believe him. Regardless of what is “morally right”. It is the law.
2. The parents disagree. This is fine and dandy. BUT! They do not have the say in the matter. The husband does.
Eventhough this was discussed… for Michael to turn away 11 million bucks says alot. For one, he isn’t for the money. Two, obviously if he didn’t care about Terri, he would have taken the money.
Fact is… these are the facts. Let her die…
March 21st, 2005 at 7:59 pm
anyways… the preacher is leaving the house! I will no longer present my opinion here, it does not seem welcome.
March 21st, 2005 at 8:16 pm
Let her die. It just needs to happen. The poor woman (according to her husband) doesn’t want this.
Whats else is there to discuss?
March 21st, 2005 at 8:20 pm
I don’t get it. I’ve responded directly to your points (or Neal Boortz’s points or whoever else’s words you have been using).
If you cannot see that moral, ethical, legal, and political relationship between euthanasia and abortion, then perhaps that explains why we see things so differently. If you hold to a utilitarian value of life, then I can better understand where you are coming from.
Sensitive? Your last post sums it up. Someone else dares to say that you hold a foolish position, and you take your ball and go home. It is the very same claim that come from you indirectly in the way you characterize anyone who sees things differently.
March 21st, 2005 at 8:39 pm
Imagine how difficult the families in this case have it. You guys can’t even have a (in the end) meaningless discussion about what little you know of it. Or should I say what little of it you’ve been fed by the Liberal Media?
There’s probably truth somewhere between the science of keeping someone artifitiallty alive well beyond their time and the other extreme of the ‘Christian’ Scientists rejection of all medical treatment. Fortunately for most of us, we don’t have to find that truth and can bicker from the comfort of our armchairs.
March 21st, 2005 at 9:12 pm
Well I just can’t turn that down Eric. I’ll still “play ball with you”. Thanks for that (that was sarcastic). Also you realize you are “characterizing” me because I see things differently than you.
You are assuming my beliefs in some utilitarian view on life which I never posted. It is convenient for you to assume this for me. *Gloves Off* Eric, you need to get off your high horse, you are calling my position foolish still. Why? Simply because you disagree with me? respect… You keep trying to portray me as some child, playing ball and running off, don’t patronize me.
Let’s sum this up, I disagreed with the dog/terrorist comparison and the newborn baby opinion. Because they are not alike, they have working brains. You replied with euthanize the animal and also going in the backyard and dueling.
Hugh asked if i saw it so cut and dry?
I said I saw it as none of our business, which people thought was such a childish remark. Why is that? Because it was so short? Josh byrd said the same thing above.
I was told I would “have been a good German in the early 30‚Äôs” and “As Esh would have made a good pre-Pearl Harbor American.” I don’t see how either comments were relevant, to me they seemed only demeaning and labeling. I made my feelings known and asked to keep from ad-hominem attacks, debate the facts, you said it was relating to a “passive atttitude” with the nazis… ok we moved on, over.
I was then told “Give yourself some room to save face. There‚Äôs no point being a hardheaded fool about this. I‚Äôm not saying you should be wishy-washy. Just please don‚Äôt act like ‚Äúnone of our business‚Äù is a compelling bottom line.” Which was only meant to show superiority with the “save face”, showing that the other persons viewpoint was superior to mine and was called a hardheaded fool. Again I said to refrain from the ad hominem attacks, debate the facts. Was then told I was overly sensitive.
I was then told I had insulted David, which I had not, I insulted Hannity (I don’t see him here?). Yes I listen to him and other talk show hosts, I like a variety but don’t stick to one source. I form my own opinion thanks.
I was then told the foolheaded was not about me, it was about my “path” taken to this, and I approached it all wrong. Sorry, I state my viewpoints point blank. Take em or leave em, I also acknowledge yours and produce logical examples of why or why they are not logical. If they are logical I will accept them, but I don’t see them as so.
Apple != Banana
Healthy Dog != 15 year Vegetative Human on life support
Healthy Human Terrorist != 15 year Vegetative human on life support
2 Healthy Family Member’s Dispute (duel) != 15 Year Vegetative Human on life support
Abortion != Removing life support (the baby is perfectly fine, or should we call it a fetus for technicality sake?)
Also I do not consider removing life support to be euthenasia.. I consider that nature taking it’s due course if that person (assuming said person has been on life support for a period of time and determined that person will not recover. AKA shell)
I produced an example that was in line with the Terri Schiavo case, the situation sitting on the couch, etc… I thought it was pretty clear, concise, and representative of the situation. Also Logical. I didn’t get any replies to it though? Wondering if it was read?
Also I don’t see the point of this comment “simple back-and-forth on a friend‚Äôs blog”. I am posting my opinion, as you are also on your friend’s blog, posting your opinion, which just happens to differ from mine. Seems like an easy jab at me. That is why I said I will walk away because of this comment you made… it seemed you were making it clear I was not welcome here to voice my opinion and debate the issue.
Is it that my opinion is just so disturbingly different and blatant? I’m not asking you to accept my opinion. I am arguing the case for my opinion. Do you see the difference?
March 21st, 2005 at 9:16 pm
Imagine how difficult the families in this case have it. You guys can’t even have a (in the end) meaningless discussion about what little you know of it. Or should I say what little of it you’ve been fed by the Liberal Media?
There’s probably truth somewhere between the science of keeping someone artifitiallty alive well beyond their time and the other extreme of the ‘Christian’ Scientists rejection of all medical treatment. Fortunately for most of us, we don’t have to find that truth and can bicker from the comfort of our armchairs.
I couldn’t agree more. I have no idea what the family OR the husband are going through. It just seems to me that the media is focusing only on the family, and nobody is taking the viewpoint of the husband here, imagine the pain he must feel after all these years. This is also why I feel it is none of our business. The courts have ruled. I have faith in our judicial system, I may not agree with everything they decide, but that is why we have congress and can work to change things. I also believe in the core of this nation, freedom.
Yes it really is rather meaningless nobody is going to change their opinion here. (although I have the feeling people expect me to change mine.)
March 21st, 2005 at 9:58 pm
Esh…
I thought we were each making a case for our positions. It really hasn’t been personal for me. Heck, I don’t even really know you. I’m just advocating my position like you are.
I haven’t meant to ‘characterize’ you, only the ideas you are espousing. I can see how my Germany/passivism comment would come across the wrong way. That is probably where the conversation took a downward turn. I’m sorry about that.
My reference to dueling was a direct response to your point that we shouldn’t get involved in a ‘family squabble.’ The parents are appealing to their elected officials to right a potential wrong that cannot be undone. Your point sounded to me like we should let them settle it themselves. Old-fashioned dueling was what came to my mind.
I actually assumed that you do not hold to a utilitarian view of life, which is why I based my argument on the need to stand against that. It wasn’t until you rejected out of hand the relationship between this case and abortion that figured I’d better not make any assumptions. I just have never met a pro-life person who would be as strident in advocating for the death of anyone as you have been here. I don’t mean that as an attack, just my observation.
I don’t believe I ever called your opinions foolish. I only recounted your reaction to Hugh’s assessment. I think you are wrong, just like you think I am. I’m not sure how my position is a ‘high-horse’ any more than anyone else’s.
I did read the couch story. I haven’t responded to it because I haven’t had time to think through how I’d like to word it. I’ll get back to you on it though.
You seem surprised that I might be trying to change your opinion. What else would the point of this debate be? Isn’t that what you were trying to do when you posted the first comment?
If you provide a sufficient argument, then I’ll change my mind, but we have some serious differences…
You see this as a small-scale, single case. I can’t help but see a bigger picture.
You naturally put yourself in the husband’s shoes. I clearly sympathize with the parents more.
You see it as government intrusion to prevent Terri’s death. I see it as government intrusion in not allowing the parent to feed their daughter.
So, I’m not sure that we are going to persuade each other. In my view, that doesn’t mean that the discussion is waste of time. You’ve given me some things to think about, and hopefully I’ve given you a few things to think about. Maybe that is as good as it will get this time.
March 21st, 2005 at 10:30 pm
Yes, I know you didn’t call it foolish or whatever… and yes I think it took a turn with the german post… but hopefully we are past all that. I don’t hold onto things, and no I don’t know you. I’m trying to get back on track here.
No I’m not surprised, and yes we are all discussing/debating for the purpose of hopefully changing someone else’s viewpoint, but realistically that won’t happen. Basically what I see these discussions is, is the exchange of ideas between people and information. I have learned a lot about this case lately on discussions on forums, radio, TV, print, and my own looking up information legal, medical, etc…
I do see this as a small case and a big case. The small case is that these laws have been in place for years and 1000’s of people have feeding tubes removed each year in the USA. Michael is within the legal right to do so. I see the big case as if the laws are changed because of this… that will have big effects I see a lot of rights being taken away.
Yes I put myself in the husband’s shoes, I think it is the most affected place in my opinion. However on boortz last week I heard a man call in that was in this position with his 6-month old child, he told his story how there was a tragic incident and there was the option to keep the baby on the feeding tube indefinitely or remove it. he told how he had to tell his wife and their grief, how he dealt with it, and how and why he felt that was the right choice. I guess you would have had to heard it yourself… but it was someone speaking from direct experience.
Yes by law it is a gov’t intrusion on the husband’s rights. If you provide some case showing otherwise then I will hear it.
No the intent is not necessarily to persuade as i said.. it is more of an exchange.
March 21st, 2005 at 11:18 pm
Hey, did I miss anything?
There’s just something about starving someone to death. It’s odd how if while she was starving to death, someone pumped her IV with 200 CCs of air ‚Äî killing her instantly when it hits her heart ‚Äî they could be charged with murder.
With so many sub-plots, this is a tricky little case in finding the truth. On the larger scale, I hope this can get the euthenasia laws re-examined - think we already went over that regarding the “I chose to get eaten” case. I wish Solomon was around to solve this.
P.S. Thanks for the hits fellas!
March 22nd, 2005 at 5:40 am
Best comment so far:
hahaha!
Nice!
15 years is a long time.I wouldn’t want to see my wife (if I ever get married) suffer like that. So yea, I think I would ask the doctor to put her down…heck, I’d do it. As for me, no longer productive in society - yea, put me to sleep as well. We had the same option when my grandfather came down with cancer. Luckily, he had made it plain to everyone: no nursing homes, no feeding tubes, no nothing - if I gotta die painfully and slowly, let nature take its course. And it did.
So, I dunno, live or let die? My vote is for letting her pass on gracefully, write a book about it, do a made for tv movie and move on. I think her husband loves her enough to not let her keep going on like this.
My thoughts. Don’t hate me cause I’m beautiful.
March 22nd, 2005 at 11:22 am
2 new articles -> what I’ve been saying all along… pimping/exploiting whatever you want to call it.
http://enterprise.southofboston.com/articles/2005/03/22/news/opinion/opinion01.txt
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/03/22/opinion/edschiavo.html
March 22nd, 2005 at 11:23 am
BTW: I’m not offended by anyone’s comments. I admit I misread the German comment as coming from Esh toward Eric, which prompted my pre-Pearl Harbor comment. Sorry ’bout that.
Thanks for adding some perspective Esh, please feel free to post your opinion here anytime - this was the first one of yours that wasn’t leet, techno-babble.
The coverage I’ve heard does make it seem like this is a very unique situation when in reality, it’s not - just more spin, lawyers and now, congress.
I’m not claiming I know what the facts are but it seems like the Schindler’s and high-profile “authorities” like Focus On The Family are using the same tactics as the liberals now - expose as many ulterior motives and conspiracies hoping that the facts somehow get lost and create enough doubt in the general public.
March 22nd, 2005 at 11:25 am
no problem… text is easily misinterpreted.
quote from above articles:
Twenty judges have already ruled on this case in seven different courts ‚Äî including one today. The result is always the same ‚Äî Schiavo’s husband is allowed to determine the course of her medical care. Congress may have succeeded in delaying that outcome, but we can’t see any reason why another federal court should rule differently.
March 22nd, 2005 at 11:29 am
From boortz today:
March 22nd, 2005 at 12:07 pm
To all that went crazy trying to leave a comment. Sorry! I recently upgraded WordPress and had the comment settings wrong. Wasn’t censoring you, just a big screw up. Hope you come back!
March 22nd, 2005 at 12:33 pm
just enable registration!! :-p
March 22nd, 2005 at 12:51 pm
That is more in the line of misleading arguments that have no substance. Only the first judge has ruled on the facts of the case. All of the subsequent judges (except the Federal Judge who heard the case yesterday) we simply ruling on the original judge’s authority to make the ruling he did. The parents have been trying, unsuccessfully until yesterday, to get a review of the facts themselves.
March 22nd, 2005 at 12:53 pm
Thanks David! Was wondering what was wrong, thought it was me!
I will sum up my posts as … I agree with esh.
March 22nd, 2005 at 2:52 pm
Obviously the law is pretty clear in florida on this issue, hence why they all agree. Do you expect the judges to redefine the law?
March 22nd, 2005 at 3:00 pm
The parents were not challenging the law, but the judgment made on the facts of the case. She was originally sentenced to die because she was deemed to be in a PVS. The parents wish to challenge that fact. I PET scan or even a possible MRI could determine it definitively, but the husband won’t allow it. What could it hurt? Unless one believes that maybe she is not in a PVS but wants to kill her anyway.
March 22nd, 2005 at 3:07 pm
Did you read the quote from boortz above about the schiavo’s own doctors’ testimony?
March 22nd, 2005 at 4:35 pm
haha too funny… check out the last name on this author :-p
March 22nd, 2005 at 4:59 pm
It’s interesting to see you get such a kick out of this situation that most people view as tragic and you have regarded as a family matter and none of our business.
March 22nd, 2005 at 5:09 pm
Since Solomon’s not here, how about Rodney King . . . “Can’t we all just get along?”
March 22nd, 2005 at 5:16 pm
Eric again you are trying to belittle my comments. If you read the article and looked at the name, you would see that person has the same last name as me. That is what I thought was funny as I clearly said check out the last name of the author, I wasn’t laughing at terry.
When did I ever say I got a kick out of terri’s situation? Never. Yes it is a family matter and none of our business.
March 22nd, 2005 at 5:20 pm
I heard that due to the electrode implants of earlier treatments, an MRI would kill her so now it is not an option. (Ironic.)
I think Esh finds humor in the author’s last name - you really should go back to the clean cut look though Esh.
March 22nd, 2005 at 5:24 pm
Esh, your hypocrisy amazes me. You ridicule those who oppose you, then cry foul when it turns back on you.
I saw the connection with the author’s last name. I just don’t see how that is so funny. I’ll leave it for the other readers to judge whether or my observation holds water.
March 22nd, 2005 at 5:26 pm
Regarding the MRI… Yeah, that’s why I said maybe on the MRI. Those implants would have to be removed. The PET scan could be done, though.
March 22nd, 2005 at 5:31 pm
Hypocrisy my ass Eric. You keep trying to shift the attention off the schiavo case and onto me constantly.
You obviously didn’t understand, you are the one that is too sensitive, the author had the same last name as I do, I found it amusing. Get over it already, all you do is keep coming back to how I somehow “cry foul”, whatever you didn’t even bring up any valid points about the articles I posted, all you commented on was how I was oh so insensitive. Get back to the issues and off bashing my opinion.
March 22nd, 2005 at 5:32 pm
Sorry maybe I’m not PC enough for this crowd.
I say it like it is.
March 22nd, 2005 at 5:42 pm
Hey, I just said your amusement was interesting. You then accused me of belittling you. How does that make me PC? Or overly sensitive for that matter?
March 22nd, 2005 at 5:47 pm
1.) You called me a hypocrite
2.) You assumed incorrectly I was taking amusement in Terri’s condition. (read your post #49. Do you read what you type?)
3.) You say I “ridicule those who oppose you, then cry foul when it turned back on you.” When you are doing just that. see points 1 & 2
4.) I said I was not PC enough for this crowd, not you. Don’t twist what I said about myself, into saying something about you? crazy.
5.) Did you read the articles I posted? Do you have any articles or information that is new? I’m giving updates as I see them.
March 22nd, 2005 at 6:12 pm
All right, all right … I’ll step in on this one. Eric, it certainly reads as an attack on something he never said. Esh, I don’t know what the PC comment is about. Everyone, wipe the slate and show personal respect. Thx!
I think this is getting back around to the original intent of the post, “With life on the line, why aren’t we sure yet?” Has the husband proven that she is gone? Do the parents have hope in and are they publicizing misleading info like eye tracking and such? I don’t know, but it seems like with all the time and money devoted to this it would be clear by now.
Here’s something that caught my attention. Terri’s State assigned lawyer was on NightLine last night. When the guest host (forgot his name - old Clinton advisor) asked if Terri was being treating fairly the lawyer somewhat hesitantly replied something to the effect of, “according to current FL law, Terri has recieved a just trial.” My immediate thought was, “Okay, what loop-holes have been exploited?”
His words make me imagine a great injustice being done “by the book.” At this point, all we can do is pray that true justice will be done and some overall good will come of this.
March 22nd, 2005 at 6:15 pm
Have you noticed that they took offline the affidavits on the fightforterri website?
http://www.terrisfight.org/press/030405medaff.html
Interesting to read up on what they DID say before the Schindlers took them offline.
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/03/09/17-medical-affidavits-about-terri-schiavo/
http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2005/03/red_herrings_17.html
March 22nd, 2005 at 6:25 pm
PC comment meant I’ve been keeping myself civil and PC, or at least I thought I was…. that is what it meant.
March 22nd, 2005 at 8:59 pm
Guys, I’ve decided to analyze this discussion. I’m sure that thrills you to no end. I will offer a disclaimer that I am Eric’s wife, so naturally, Esh, you might tend to dismiss my views. I ask you to step back though, and resist the temptation. Eric won’t escape without being critiqued, either. So, here goes.
First, Esh, I must say, your first blog starts the tone of this whole heated debate. Now, before I start this, let me say that I realize that the “heated debate” is not the real issue some or any of you might want to address here. However, I wholeheartedly believe that if you go through life being “unteachable,” you’ll miss many of the “real issues” in life.
Back to my point . . . the first thing you do, Esh, is dismiss those who would disagree with you, (in a tone, I might add, that comes across in print, at least, as being condescending and sarcastic) before anyone else is able to put an opinion out there. That naturally is going to put others in a defensive mode. They feel attacked before the discussion has begun. You’ve already made it personal from your very first post. Then, you continue to seem to insult those with differing opinions. Saying that you only insulted Sean Hannity doesn’t excuse the offense, because many people happen to agree with him, so in essence, you’ve insulted them as idiots for believing as they do, too. It’s an indirect insult, but it’s an insult, nonetheless.
Also, as a side note, Esh, if popular opinion is to let Terri die, then how can the politicians be pimping for votes? They’re going against what the public wants. Inconsistent argument . . . . Anyhow . . . .
Next, Esh, you very matter-of-factly dismissed the abortion issue as a red herring, but many believe it’s not. Both have to do with the sanctity of life; both have to do with total dependence on someone else to sustain them; and both are issues of who has a “right” to say when that life will end. When you say that the courts intruded on Michael’s rights to be able to say when his wife’s food source should be removed (even though nothing is written down about her wishes, and there’s some disagreement as to when he first “remembered” her wishes), IMHO it’s equivalent to saying that a mother should be able to decide when her baby’s food source should be removed (hence, abortion). I see a similarity (and there are probably many others that I am not eloquent enough to argue), not a red herring.
Then, when you made the statement “If you want I can let my eyes glaze over and murmur along with the rest of the crowd ‘save terri,’” what have you done but just insulted those arguing against you in this discussion? You’ve basically called them idiots again.
So, Esh, I would humbly suggest that you go back and read the “tone” of your posts, not just the words, and try to see where this discussion FIRST went down this path.
Now, to the others . . . Hugh and Eric both said some things that either were meant to be harsh or came out that way. I think that from the beginning of this discussion, due to the subject matter AND the tone set in the beginning, blood pressure was sure to rise. However, that doesn’t excuse inappropriate attacks on anyone. Now, I’m NOT saying what is inappropriate or not. I believe you each have to figure that out. However, I would say that each of you, as followers of Christ, should err on the side of humility. I think all parties could be challenged to look at the merits of the case without insulting each other. However, everyone seems to feel insulted right now. I would ask you to consider stepping back and looking at your own posts and how they could be construed. Then, maybe you can start to look at the merits of the matter instead of the personalities involved.
I appreciate that you are all passionate about your beliefs. I would just leave you with these:
“A prudent man keeps his knowledge to himself, but the heart of fools blurts out folly.” Proverbs 12:23
“The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice.” Proverbs 12:15
“A fool has no delight in understanding, but in expressing his own heart.” Proverbs 18:2
and finally . . .
“When words are many, transgression is not lacking.” Proverbs 10:19
I hope I didn’t offend anyone. Please accept my apologies if I did. That is not my intent . . . only to call to attention how things seem to have headed down this path. Good night . . . and don’t forget to pray for Terri and her parents tonight!
March 22nd, 2005 at 9:05 pm
Unfortunately, this seems to have degenerated into battle for the last word. I will take this opportunity to defend myself, but (hopefully) not open up any new battles.
Hypocrisy, loosely defined, is telling someone else to stop doing something that you are actually doing. In Post 55 (where you say “Hypocrisy my ass Eric.” ) you say “Get back to the issues and off bashing my opinion.” But we have…
Post 1: “oh that whole dog and terrorist thing is such hogwash, get hannity off your ear!”
Post 6: “oh please… he is acting upon his wife’s wishes. Obviously his wife wouldn’t have wanted him to wait around 15 years, especially after only trying to do what she asked.”
Post 15: “oh please… he could live in the caribbean away from it all on $11 million”
These are just the highlights. Obviously “oh please…” is short for something along the lines of “Oh please don’t insult us with such silliness.” In addition, virtually every other post is “bashing” the opinions you think are wrong. I see nothing wrong with that. Wrong opinions should be bashed.
This leads me to one more defense… The “ad hominem” attacks. I have directed all of my comments to what you have said here. I have taken on your ideas directly. You seem find it more noble to make you assault directly on folks who are not here to defend themselves (Hannity, the pimps, etc.), then say “I never personally attacked anyone here.” The attacks on others who hold the opposing view clearly indict the folks who are here advocating that view. And I never complained about that. If you think our ideas are stupid, say so. Just don’t be surprised if you get called a whiner when you complain about being attacked because someone says that your ideas are stupid.
As to posts 48 and 49, I felt like your finding humor in any aspect of this situation was kind of sad. You said “You assumed incorrectly I was taking amusement in Terri’s condition. (read your post #49. Do you read what you type?)” All I said was that you were getting some kicks out of it, which you have. You’ve found some fun in it. Not in Terri’s condition, but in the midst of the spectacle that it’s become. Does that make me overly sensitive? Maybe.
You say: “Sorry maybe I’m not PC enough for this crowd. I say it like it is.”
Then I say: “How does that make me PC?”
Then you respond: “I said I was not PC enough for this crowd, not you. Don’t twist what I said about myself, into saying something about you? crazy.”
How else would I take this but as those you are arguing with are too PC for you (hence, you are not PC enough). And yet I’m twisting your words in some crazy way. I don’t get that one at all.
I’m sorry that this has degenerated into such an unproductive discussion.
March 22nd, 2005 at 9:35 pm
## Just to give context - guiroo removed a link and general name calling here. ##
Comparing abortion to this case is the lamest argument. A child is growing towards something, towards becoming something great. Terri is dying…slowy…painfully. As each day goes by, she does not get better, she gets worse. Deteriorates if you will. Extra “feeding times” do not mean that she will start crawling one day, will spurt out momma and poppas and get all excited over watching Baby Einstein videos. It is merely prolonging the inevitable.
Do I think it is a tough decision, heck yes! Gosh! But it is something - for the benefit of her - that should be done. I mean, do we want to look back on this in 20 years, at this blob of a person and think to ourselves, “Right on! We did it! She can‚Äôt do a damn thing, has bed sores all over her, bone marrow pretty much gone, not a bit of muscle tissue or ligaments in her, but hell yes, she‚Äôs still alive!! w00t!!”
*applause*
That said, starving her is so lame, but assisted suicide is like so wrong. Some kinda lethal dose, bullet - something, anything - is in order to stop her from suffering like that.
If only she were a gelatinous baby, born into a PVS with no hope of surviving in the natural world. Then there would be no argument whatsoever. One hour later - non issue.
March 22nd, 2005 at 10:26 pm
Ouch, Mel. I’d like to respectfully ask that you not discount my opinions or arguments. I’d like to address a few of your issues.
1) What do YOU base your reason on? I’d like to submit that if there are no absolutes on which you base your reason, it’s not reason, but merely opinion, which is no better that you have just accused me of.
2) What do you know about the God WE claim to serve? I’d like to know your credentials on what I believe about God.
3) Why do you think that insulting me is going to assist your point in any way in this situation?
4) Please forgive me if I’m not compelled to look at the link that you provided for us.
5) Why do you say that abortion is a lame argument? Assuming that, since you went with my issue of ‚Äúabortion,‚Äù your following comments are about what pro-abortionists refer to as a ‚Äúfetus‚Äù but pro-lifers recognize as a person, how do you know what the child is growing towards? It hasn‚Äôt been born. You don‚Äôt know what problems it might have. What determines its worth — how much it will accomplish in life? Doesn‚Äôt that put you in a place of authority of determining who deserves to live? Again, what are your credentials for that?
6) Why is it a tough decision? If she’s in a PVS AND has no feeling, it shouldn’t be painful. But then, why do you say that it’s for her benefit for her to die? Why would she even care?
7) How do you know what she can do? Are you in her head? How do you know that this “blob” you refer to is not observing all of this around her and just doesn’t have the ability to respond? Do you KNOW that? Nevertheless, should we determine a person’s worth based on what that person can “DO” as you have referred to it? Was Christopher Reeve less of a person once he couldn’t “DO” all the things he used to be able to do?
9) Moving on to your next point, again, I ask, why would you say that starving her is lame, if she is in a PVS, she can’t feel it anyhow, so she’s not really suffering (or is she?), so why should you care, anyhow?
10) And finally, what do you mean with the “one hour later – non issue” statement? Is that baby any less alive than you are? Why would it be a non-issue? I dare say that his parents wouldn’t feel that way. BTW, I recently heard of a friend of a friend whose baby was “doomed” with a heart defect and a chromosomal defect. They were given the opportunity to abort, since the baby would die anyhow. They didn’t abort, and they have a baby whose diagnosis of a chromosomal disorder was apparently “incorrect.” The heart defect can be fixed with surgery in a few months and the baby is expected to live a long, healthy, normal life.
I respectfully ask you to refrain from name-calling and consider the points I have posed. I am not here to insult you, and I hope that you feel the same way. I am a firm believer that discussion can enlighten the mind. I pray that you and I will both seek that end.
March 22nd, 2005 at 10:28 pm
For once this is making sense. I’m not being sarcastic, I really mean it.
It’s perfectly logical that if you dismiss Christ and hold to the view that this world is all there is, with nothing but death to look forward to, then sure. “Letting Terri die” is a perfectly logical conclusion.
But if you have any inkling that there’s more to it than just courts and laws and judges and the relentless march toward death that all of us find ourselves on, then you have more thinking to do.
If you dismiss Christ, don’t bother reading on.
Here’s what he said (Matthew 25):
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not turning Terri Schiavo into a proxy for the whole “you’re going to hell” thing - if there’s anything this blog doesn’t need it’s that.
I only cite that section because it goes straight to the main issue: how do we treat the least among us? For my part, I plead guilty. At best, I can certainly be doing more. At worst, I’m too often indifferent or apathetic.
There’s lots of treatment given here as to all the reasons Terri Schiavo is hopeless. Esh, you’ve provided a lot of food for thought for me - I haven’t seen anything to make it cut-and-dry, but there’s certainly plenty to indicate that we should be skeptical of the medical evidence supporting optimism here.
But for me, the bottom line isn’t the opinion of a doctor or a court.
It’s the allegiance I owe to the one who died for all the hopeless souls like Terri Schiavo and esh and David and Eric and me.
He said futility cases like Terri Schiavo are my business because they are his business.
…
Esh, I owe you an apology for the whole “saving face” thing. That wasn’t constructive; it was a back-door crap-toss that was intended to put you on the defensive. Part of it I meant in sincerity: when I dig myself in too deeply at the outset, I find it’s really tough to backtrack even when I want to… but that’s why repentance is hard.
Anyway… here’s hoping we can restore a sense of sobriety about this whole thing. The subject deserves it.
March 22nd, 2005 at 10:40 pm
P.S. A “blob” speaks.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/11/earlyshow/main673281.shtml
March 22nd, 2005 at 11:02 pm
The only people who have used the words idiot here are Ennis & Eric’s Wife. I used hogwash, perhaps it was taken as an “indirect insult” as you say, it was a kinder term and I later stated an example using Logic to show why it did not apply. The only response was to euthanize the dog. Yes I do dismiss things that do not logically apply. IE. Terrorists, Dogs, cats. And I backed them up. I also stated an example of wife/husband on a couch, similiar situation. It was logical, I’m not appealing to emotions here. I’m looking for logical responses. I didn’t see anyone else provide an alternative example as to how and why starving a dog is in fact correlated to this? I would listen if so, and if it worked out then maybe i’d adopt it. If I thought the logic was flawed I would say why I thought it was flawed… as I have done already.
As to the popular opinion side of it, I can see your argument that way, but politics are moved by groups and the republicans are being pushed very hard by the right-to-life group which is on their agenda and they have majority in both houses, they are also siding with the largest vote block in the USA which is the Christian vote. This vote is the determining vote and is largely republican. I have not seen a single christian radio station or tv station or preacher agreeing with michael schiavo. The poll is just that a poll, probably by a news media outlet, more than likely a convenience poll. (we all know the media bias against the republican party)
Abortion is not an issue. Logically this is why I don’t see it correlating. The BABY does NOT have a VOICE. Terri HAD a VOICE and she VOICED her wishes to not remain in this state. Only Michael & God know what Terri actually told her husband, and Michael will have to stand for this. Who are we to judge him and call him a liar?
Yes I know my tone is not the best, I am actually toning it down quite a bit here compared to other places… as I said I am trying to be a little more PC here. No I’m not liberal, democrat, republican or libertarian.
You could take it that way but i’m not calling anyone idiots here, I disagree with the majority, i’m saying it is easy to go along with the crowd. Perhaps we need to ask the age old WWJD? Jesus was a liberal in his time, what would he have said? I surely don’t know.
That is very loose, but if that is how you define it, then I would say there are many hypocrytes among us including myself.
Well Eshelman is not exactly an everyday name you come across, I clicked on the link on news.google.com and was reading and saw eshelman and was like hah! that is crazy. You don’t seem to get that? Yes I feel you are overly sensitive and were just looking for something to attack me on.
Well yes saying someone would give up $11 million for a lie does not make sense. Ok so you agree to continue with the bashing… looking back to the hypocrisy definition, I guess we will all be bashing opposing opinions.
That is what you do, you attack the source not the person. Hence the very definition of the word ad hominem you are attacking the person. I bashed hannity, I bashed congress, both bushes… But I see you wish to keep with the indirect thing. That’s fine, I also see you are fine with personal attacks, and in the future calling my opinions stupid and the same with me calling your ideas stupid. Fine I won’t complain the next time my ideas are called stupid, just be prepared when I call yours stupid. But just remember that earlier you said “Name-calling is not” healthy.
I won’t go into the whole PC issue again over and over. We are past PC now.
Exactly, not to mention my earlier point, Terri had a voice and spoke her wishes, a Baby cannot speak its wishes.
Also this whole idea of taking her off the feeding machines and trying to feed her by hand hoping for some recovery… she can’t swallow… can you imagine when she did try to swallow some food? Death by asphixiation is surely much more horrid than that of starvation.
March 22nd, 2005 at 11:06 pm
Hey Hugh, keeping it interesting. Speaking to your point of…
I picture myself (one that considers Christ) in the same situation trying to care for the one I love most the way that she would want it. I see eternity awaiting her. I also see a lot of people yelling, “David’s trying to kill Regina.”
March 22nd, 2005 at 11:06 pm
I wish people would stop referring to Terri and others as blobs for 1
March 22nd, 2005 at 11:08 pm
no worries mate, we all do some crap-tosses
March 22nd, 2005 at 11:23 pm
I see nothing about her being PVG. All I see is she was in a coma, people recover from comas all the time. PVG is different than a coma.
March 22nd, 2005 at 11:47 pm
But this is the very point that the parents are arguing. Don’t kill her until we have made as sure as is medically possible that she is in a PVS.
What is the harm? If she is, the she’s gone anyway and wouldn’t care. If she’s not, then don’t kill her yet.
March 22nd, 2005 at 11:52 pm
They have… the test they have done have shown her cerebral cortex is liquified. The “experts” on the Schindlers side did not even address those test nor did they even look at terri, they based them off the same video everyone else sees on TV. And the schindlers brought 33 affidavits, but the courts only found 17 to be anywhere near credible, they then reviewed what the “experts” said and deemed them not relevant.
March 22nd, 2005 at 11:53 pm
…when you enter the houses, greet one another with a greeting from God blessed and good.
1) I don’t believe what you believe. My reasoning will be different form yours - thankfully. But to discredit it based on the idea that it does not meet your standard is absurd.
2) I was wrong. I digress.
3) My apologies, I do have a hard time with Christians and their ideologies.
4) I think you should have. Jesus would.
5) I have no pro/anti abortion ties. Assuming a healthy child, there is much to gain. Assuming a child with extreme brain trauma then there are issues that a parent must consider. No one can guarantee what will happen in their life - hence Terri. A child is worth a lot. I don’t know what a child will accomplish, hence the idea of parental involvement; show the child the world, let the child decide. I’m a dad after years of miscarriages and abortions, does that help my credentials any? No, guess not.
6) Does mental anguish count as pain? Although one can’t tell what’s going on in her brain (although we can get a clearer picture - see answer 7). But then again, if she can’t feel anything, screw it, let’s just leave her there, she doesn’t know any better. This kind of reminds me of that Metallica song - “One”. The video for that was based on the book “Johnny Got His Gun” by Dalton Trumbo. He later directed the movie in 1971. If you can find it, watch/read it. Similarities?
7) Please do not associate Christopher Reeve with Terri. Find similar cases. Terri is in no way capable of sustaining herself or regaining anything she has lost. Sarah Scantlin had one thing over Terri, she could communicate. Period. Terri is unable and more than likely, will never be able to do this (stress “more than likely” - scientifically proven?):
Let’s lay some things to rest about Terri’s state:
http://respectfulofotters.blogspot.com/2005_03_01_respectfulofotters_archive.html
and moreover, the state of this case:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2005/03/terri_schiavo.html
9) I care because suffering in any form - physical, mental or anything else - is not something I enjoy nor would I want for anyone else. In regards to Terri, it is a sad state of affairs that we can so easily get rid of “healthy” criminals that could certainly use rehabilitation into society, but are quick to prolong the life of a, I’ll say it, a blob that will never be productive or contribute anything or give anybody what they want: a being able to ‘communicate’. The better question here: Is she not suffering? I guess she would think that what is going on is cool, huh? Again, I humbly submit that her state of affairs is far from physiological as much as it is psychological. And seeing as how she can’t think, maybe it’s time to let her move on.
10) I feel for your friend of a friends and the misnomer in the diagnosis. That is unfortunate. However a healthy child will live on to do amazing things and with an awesome story or survival to boot! Second opinions abound in this world; they would have done well to pursue several. We did the same with out child. Let me present you a case of a friend of ours, who went through with her labor and gave birth to a still born child…and it was no surprise. She knew the child inside of her, that was once growing, had died. Yet, amidst the possibility of infection, further physical harm to her and added on top of that the emotional damage, she chose to go throw with “labor”. Albeit, it wasn’t a normal procedure, but still, she went on with it. If Terri, were that child, in my friend‚Äôs womb and my friend aborted, no one would cry harm or foul. Better yet, if Terri, in the state that she is in, were in the womb of a women that is late in her 2nd trimester and found out the terrible news, no one would call foul if she chose to abort. But let’s say she had the child, add 15 years and you have a teenager, which has never, and will never comprehend or understand the world around him. That, in my opinion is torture. I give thanks each day for my son. Two blood transfusions 2 weeks old and prognosis of possible retardation due to probable brain damage and two years later I have a healthy young boy that loves to run around naked!
Looking at my son, thinking about Terri…I understand the pain of her parents and her husband. If it were my son…
I have granted your wish of no name calling.
I have considered your points and have given my reply - with my reasoning of course.
Walaikum as sala’am wa barakatuhu.
*bows
March 22nd, 2005 at 11:53 pm
test I am referring to is CAT scans of her brain
March 23rd, 2005 at 1:00 am
good comment I found elsewhere
March 23rd, 2005 at 1:02 am
man… there goes about an hour of reading time… wow… ya’ll like to write… haha
March 23rd, 2005 at 5:59 am
OK, then where’s the harm in allowing the parents to come to their own conclusion? Let them run a PET scan. Let them attempt therapy. If Terri is permanently gone, then we are really only talking about timing and method of burial.
It seems to me that you can’t have it both ways… The “Terri is gone. Let her go.” Argument is self-refuting. If she’s gone, then no one needs to “let” her do anything. If she’s not gone, then what relevance does arguing that she is in a PVS have in justifying starving her to death? Unless you hold the utilitarian view of life that mel espouses. That is, someone is worthy of living if they can justify their existence by living at some arbitrary threshold of quality.
March 23rd, 2005 at 6:40 am
As much as I’d like to respond to each of your responses, Mel, I don’t have time today. Eric, David, and Hugh, maybe you could address the points, or I can try to come back to them tomorrow. However, I’d like to address one thing . . . point #4.
First, I have no interest in looking at something controversial that seems to be presented to me just to offend. The very name of the site that you put out there was antagonistic, and I was not going down that path. (Thanks, David, for removing the link.) If you had a real issue to discuss, we could have done that without being offensive.
Second, I’d like to know how you know that “Jesus would” have looked at it. It’s interesting to me that someone who says he is not a follower of Christ somehow “knows” exactly what Jesus would do in a given situation and can inform the followers of Christ of what Jesus would do. Again, I ask, what are your credentials, in this area?
March 23rd, 2005 at 7:35 am
Real quick, before I go to work, Terri has not “been here” for 15 years. Nothing will change that. If you claim to believe in the power of God, then removing the feeding tube means absolutely nothing. I mean, He can work miracles right? Or did he stop doing that?
Terri is not a someone, she is a something. She is not “living” as one might like to refer to the term. She is merely an organism that is “alive” much like a bacteria in a pitri dish. Hate to be blunt, but that is the truth.
###
Jesus indeed would have investigated that link. He and I would have had an interesting debate on said link and content therein. See Jesus was a philosopher, not a zealos idealist. Anyone could come to Him with any argument. Sacred traditions, questionable content, sexual deviances, murderous intents, - He heard all types of discussions and was made privy to all types of subject matter. Not once did he back down or cower at the thought of someone trying to offend Him or ridicule anyone for what others would deem offensive behavior. Jesus kicked ass and I would love to talk to Him about lots of things that His followers don’t seemed well equipped to handle.
But see, this rational doesn’t work here. I know what I have to do to communicate with “y’all”. So this evening I’ll break out some good old scripture fer ya. Then we can use the Bible all night to thrash each other - plenty of passages in there to do so. Much more fun when you can ridicule through scripture don’t you think? Chrisitians seem to communicate better that way.
Walaikum as sala’am wa barakatuhu.
*bows
March 23rd, 2005 at 7:45 am
Oh and I’d like to punch myself in the arm for my point #3. See I don’t really have a problem with Christians. I will take that back. The issue I have is with religious - uh, hm trying to find a word here…I want to say pundits, but I can’t put you guys in that category, that’s not fair. I’ll find the right word later. Moving on, I do have Christian friends, I believe and follow a good amount of what I hold to be truths in the Bible. So, yea, I need to bash myself for #3 lest I deny the roots from which I first started this journey.
###
I love this line: “Eric, David, and Hugh, maybe you could address the points…”
Regulatooooooors! Mount up!
hehe.
./m\.
March 23rd, 2005 at 8:02 am
Can we stop the credentials questioning? Everyone has the ‘credential’ to voice their opinion. It is the innate ability God gave each of us - the ability to think, rationalize and come to our own conclusions about any and all things. Adding the ‘credential clause’ insinuates that because it does not match up with what you might believe, it is untruth unless validated against what you believe, thus rendering said comments meaningless cause they have no merit within your system of checks and balances. All items for discussion are presented as conjecture. Take it as you will and allow it to permeate.
Again, this is a concept Jesus understood and practiced well. Man, if He were here this conversation would be awesome. Matthew 11:28 / to me that says, whatever you got bring it and let us work it out. I’m tellin’ ya, Jesus kicked ass! But somehow or another, His message and methodoligies got muffed up over the years.
*sigh
March 23rd, 2005 at 8:03 am
*methodologies
It’s early, can’t type.
March 23rd, 2005 at 9:59 am
Mel, as soon as you assert what some historical figure would or would not do in a given situation, the onus is on you to back up your claim. If you, as one who apparently rejects Jesus’ central teachings (you refer to Christians in the third party) are going to school those of us who actively study and attempt to model His life on what Jesus would do or how He thinks, then asking what you to back up your words seems perfectly legitimate to me.
March 23rd, 2005 at 10:29 am
This is getting out of hand.
So your saying that in no way would Jesus entertain this conversation let alone look at the link I sent? Have we humanized Him that much to ascertain that because we wouldn’t, He wouldn’t either? We are speaking of someone capable of going 40 days/nights meditating, who could heal the sick, combat the Pharisees, raise the dead, walk on water, arise from the dead, make wine for a wedding, wash away sins, eat and converse with the people that have or possibly “reject” his teachings and so on and so on…that at the very least, would have no problems with anything I could present to Him. Anything. Thankfully He has no “conditionals” to His love or to grasp even but a glimpse of His knowledge that is at the depths of understanding life itself. He makes it clear that anyone that wants to come to Him, let them come. I am not talking about salvation or any of that, merely, all who come will be served.
So no, I do not intend to justify anything that is already there before you. I leave that to those of you “who actively study and attempt to model [their lives] on what Jesus would do or how He thinks…” See, because that makes you far greater than I could ever attempt to be. I have never had the power to comprehend or even attempt to know what Jesus - God - thinks. Nor do I belive I will ever be. My assumption - based on His teachings - is that He would never have a problem with anything I would bring to Him; links included.
###
Mind if we get back on topic? The next time I am in Atlanta, I would certainly entertain a meaningful discussion with everyone here as it pertains to Chrisianity. Before that though, make sure some of you read up on the fruits of the spirit / Galatians 5:22.
Actually, maybe we all need to read up on that before moving forward with any type of discussion.
Maktub.
March 23rd, 2005 at 10:41 am
When did I ever say or imply that? I simply said that if you are going to claim to speak with any authority on Jesus, I’d like to know what you base it on.
If I said “Thomas Jefferson would reinsert Terri’s feeding tube.” You would naturally ask me what I base my assertion on. Simply to state it caries no weight. I can say that the moon is made of green cheese, but that doesn’t make it so.
March 23rd, 2005 at 10:46 am
At what point do you stop arguing? Is this another trait you learned from your studies? I thought “…a kind word availeth much.”
I think I might need your version of the Bible. From the one I’m reading, its teachings are leading me in the direction of ending the squabble. Daily devotion does wonders for the character…
Maktub.
March 23rd, 2005 at 10:53 am
This morning, I woke up and was admonished to chill. I’m not here to argue. If this conversation keeps lending itself to underlying insults and accusations, then this conversation will bear no fruits and in the end, is futile. The hollow void that is the internet does not provide an appropriate medium for discussions like this - well when they are opposed. Emotions run rampant and it perverts the opinions expressed. So with that, again, I offer up my time to meet with this group the next time I am in Atlanta.
Maktub.
March 23rd, 2005 at 10:57 am
Hey hey, regarding point #4 - everyone drop it. Mel, It was my opinion that the link (and a bit of name calling) didn’t contribute to the topic. Thanks for being so understanding of my difficult decision to edit a post, I mean it.
The idea of whether Jesus would have clicked on it or not isn’t being argued. However, I did click on it (technically very good songwriting BTW) and it gave me some ideas for a future post - probably not one that anyone would expect though - so we may discuss it at a later date.
My question is “have the parents suggested what kind of proof would be satisfactory for them to come to the conclusion that it’s time to ‘let here go’?”
Here’s another question I would love to hear people’s thoughts on: If her body is functioning and her brain is gone, where is here soul?
Oh, one last thing…
Sorry Eric, but I don’t agree with this.
Here’s what I offer everyone to keep in mind as you type: All opinions should be respected and all are open to examination. We cannot change anyone’s mind for them. All we can do is offer our own conclusions and how we got there.
PLEASE, keep it civil folks. Thx!
March 23rd, 2005 at 11:07 am
Respecting all people is honorable and tolerant. Respecting all ideas dangerous and will ultimately kill you if you live that way. If I tell you that you should pour antifreeze on you cornflakes and eat it, would respect my opinion? Of course not. That doesn’t mean that you are not respecting me.
March 23rd, 2005 at 11:08 am
Being a “christian” myself. I see no problems with Mels comments. I believe the only thing Christ would do in a situation that was to become a discussion would be to discern the motives for such a discussion. If the motives where right, meaning not a mockery, then by all means I believe Christ would engage into a decent discussion regarding ANYTHING.
March 23rd, 2005 at 11:19 am
Option A: That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.
Option B: Sure, if the desired effect is instant death. I’ve heard that antifreeze tastes sweet to dogs but I think I’ll just stick with Nutrasweet for now.
March 23rd, 2005 at 11:19 am
A clarification… If by respecting opinions you mean respecting the rights of everyone to express their opinions, then I put that in the category of respecting the person and totally agree. In that case, then maybe we had a misunderstanding over what I meant by bashing bad opinions. I’m simply saying that if I represent something that is false or illogical, it should be refuted (bashed if you like).
March 23rd, 2005 at 11:20 am
Hey, did you just bash my opinion?
March 23rd, 2005 at 11:26 am
I have to Agree with superman here.
I’d listen to your cornflakes idea, maybe ask you to try it to disprove my knowledge of it and the fact that is says on the bottle do not eat or drink. If your stupid enough to eat antifreeze though…well… that would be a whole new topic. You can respect people’s opinions and ideas without actually taking them on as your own, your example of the antifreeze is not a good one logically, you are just trying to bring in the “kill you” factor.
Yes I have to agree, that is for one thing yet another fallacy. (yes I know you will all be upset that I called you out on a fallacy, look it up, call me a whiner, it’s the truth). You are only trying to discredit others with these “credentials”.
Sure, but he has been providing examples, you haven’t been addressing them as far as I can see?