The Town Hall Archives Ahh, the nostalgia.     Search   Memberlist   Log in  Terri Schiavo      The Town Hall Forum Index -> Impolite Company Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next View previous topic :: View next topic   Author Message Jonathan Dungeon Master Joined: 21 Oct 2004 Posts: 2254 Location: Minnesota and/or North Dakota Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 6:28 pm    Post subject: Todd Friel presented a good arguement (that some of you will no doubt argue against). He said it's not 'contribution to society' or 'quality of life', but quantity of life. Take the pope for instance. He's got a tube up his nose to help him breath. He isn't really productive right now, and at 84 the chances of him getting better a whole lot is pretty slim. Also, Terri wasn't on life support. (note- the rest of this is my arguement). I hold the opinion, (regardless of what those docs said Jared) that she shouldn't have been killed. So the question is, has Pandora's box been opened? Who's next? Mentally handicapped people aren't productive to society. People in nursing homes aren't. Should we care for them? Of course. But we are now, as a society, on the slope that will lead to the answer given being yes. Call me a sensationalist, but we have stepped onto the same slope the Nazis were 70 years ago. Yes, I believe that. They killed those who couldn't contribute or were handicapped etc. That is what was argued in this case, "Her quality of life was low and she wasn't productive". On another note, I've lost all respect for Mr. Michael Schiavo. He denied the family access to her in her dying moments. I also believed that those atrocious rulings carried out in those courts were in direct violation of the constitution. The constitution "[holds] these truths to be self-evident, that all [people] are entitled to these basic rights; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They took Terri's life. They took the liberty away from her family to care for Terri. Now here some of you might argue "Micheal was her legal guardian". But no, that shouldn't have been. It was his responsibility to care for her and keep her safe. He didn't. That priveledge should've been taken away from him and given to people, i.e. her family, who were willing to take that responsibility. I'm also greatly disappointed with the Bush brothers. There is a verse in the Bible (and I can't remember off the top of my head) that goes something along the lines of "Evil abounds b/c the rightous stand by". I'm not calling them righteous necessarily, but they had the power. They could've gone in that court and said "I know I could face consequences for this, but I believe that what you are doing is wrong and I'm going to do something about it. Dr. King, Abraham Lincoln, Rosa Parks. All three of them were willing to disobey the courts and law to do what they believed were right, two of them even willing to go to jail for it. And the Bush boys did not. Judge Greer, the justice who's had the biggest hand in this, is being publicy bereated by his pastor, a Mr. Williams. Yep, that's right, he used to be a southern baptist. B/C of these comments, the Judge has left the church. And I applaud Pastor Williams. He said that "Until you repent, you are not welcomed in this church". No doubt this church lost money b/c of it. We've lost more respect for life. In the early 70's (and I'm relating what's been told to me by people who lived during then) society was told that if abortion is legalized, it would be rare. 4000 babies a day. Did we see that coming? 40 Million babies killed, done away by means of infanticide, slaughtered on the alter of shelfishness. If I had done to my cat that which the courts allowed to happen to Terri, I'd be doing time. Without question. Our courts opened the door for abortion, 40 million dead. And now, we've killed a handicapped woman. What is next? Who is next? -Jonathan Coralfish Town Hall Judge Joined: 17 Dec 2002 Posts: 1790 Location: Southern Academia Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 6:33 pm    Post subject: GusDeHaan wrote: If she was in PVS it wouldn't really affect her - the results of the autopsy will tell us if she was killed in pain, or not. I highly doubt that there will be an autopsy. I believe it was Michael Schiavo's wish shat she be cremated without having one performed. As for the comments by Jonathan about the current (and past trends) of deciding the value of life based on economic worth: Do you think this has anything to do with either big business, commercialism or consumerism? I have a few theories, but I was merely wondering what you thought. Jared Cute and Cuddly Joined: 23 Nov 2002 Posts: 4672 Location: Pennsylvania Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 7:20 pm    Post subject: Jonathan wrote: Todd Friel presented a good arguement (that some of you will no doubt argue against). He said it's not 'contribution to society' or 'quality of life', but quantity of life. Take the pope for instance. He's got a tube up his nose to help him breath. He isn't really productive right now, and at 84 the chances of him getting better a whole lot is pretty slim. Also, Terri wasn't on life support. (note- the rest of this is my arguement). I hold the opinion, (regardless of what those docs said Jared) that she shouldn't have been killed. Whatever you think about this very tragic situation, it was never a "quality of life" case. No one ever argued that because Terri couldn't live a complete life, we had the right to end it. Whatever America may be, we aren't the Netherlands yet. Again, you may have a problem with what happened, but it's highly disingenuous to suggest that this is anything new, as it has been an issue for as long as the ability to prolong life artificially has existed without our society succumbing to the ways of Dr. Kevorkian. Jonathan wrote: So the question is, has Pandora's box been opened? Who's next? Mentally handicapped people aren't productive to society. People in nursing homes aren't. Should we care for them? Of course. But we are now, as a society, on the slope that will lead to the answer given being yes. Slippery slope arguments sometimes have merit, but this one doesn't. If there's a potentially dangerous slippery slope here, it's Congressional involvement in a matter that was none of their own business. (Incidentally, they defied a long-standing ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and did away with accepted legal dogma by transferring jurisdiction in the case.) Terri was not disabled. She was, to use the layman's term, brain-dead. Our society, even the most devout among us, have always treated such cases differently. Yes, there's room for plenty of disagreement here, but suggestions that this will lead to legalized euthanasia are unfounded and hyperbolic. Jonathan wrote: Call me a sensationalist, but we have stepped onto the same slope the Nazis were 70 years ago. Yes, I believe that. They killed those who couldn't contribute or were handicapped etc. That is what was argued in this case, "Her quality of life was low and she wasn't productive". Again, this is entirely unreasonable, and it really doesn't help your argument to bring up the Nazis. I am firmly of the opinion that one ought not compare someone or something to Nazis without a very good reason. I'm tired of hearing everyone who makes a (perceived) wrong decision immediately labeled a Nazi, or a Hitler / Goering / Little Eichmann. Jonathan wrote: On another note, I've lost all respect for Mr. Michael Schiavo. He denied the family access to her in her dying moments. I don't know why he did that, but I agree that it was reprehensible. Of course, would you like me to run down the list of appalling things the Schindlers have done? Starting with the fact that they just sold their financial donor list. Or the fact that the reason for their falling out with Michael Schiavo was because he didn't give them "enough" of a slice of the settlement money he got. (Why they deserved any isn't clear.) Or that they'd go on tirades against their strongest supporters, deciding that governors not willing to send in agents to besiege the hospice was worthy of denunciation. I could go on... Michael Schiavo is not a commendable man, but neither are Terri's parents. Both sides are dysfunctional. Jonathan wrote: I also believed that those atrocious rulings carried out in those courts were in direct violation of the constitution. The constitution gives the right to determine such things to the state, and the only people who violated this were the ones in Congress who seem to think that they have the right to do anything they want. Also, those rulings were legally correct. The law is clear on the matter, and the judges scrupulously followed the law, as is their sworn duty. Jonathan wrote: The constitution "[holds] these truths to be self-evident, that all [people] are entitled to these basic rights; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have different Constitutions, it seems, as the closest my copy comes to that is the fourteenth amendment, which reads in part, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." However, it has been understood for as long as measures to prolong life artificially have existed that denying these is not the same as denying life. Proactive measures of artificial life extension are fine, but to argue that the Constitution requires them goes way beyond the text and would have repercussions I'd rather not think about. Talk about a Pandora's Box! (By the way, if the above were the case, and since suicide is illegal -- at least, attempted and assisted, since you obviously cannot prosecute the completed act -- would that mean that no person has the right to decide for themselves whether or not to undergo medical procedures that doctors thing would prolong / preserve their lives? I really see what you're suggesting as having much more "slippery slope" potential.) Jonathan wrote: They took Terri's life. Not really. Jonathan wrote: They took the liberty away from her family to care for Terri. Now here some of you might argue "Micheal was her legal guardian". But no, that shouldn't have been. It was his responsibility to care for her and keep her safe. He didn't. That priveledge should've been taken away from him and given to people, i.e. her family, who were willing to take that responsibility. On what grounds? You can dislike him -- I do -- but no legal grounds existed for depriving him of that right. Now, if such grounds did exist, I would certainly support acting on it, but since they did not, I pose a question: as conservatives, are we not rather concerned with the "sanctity of marriage"? I keep hearing that Terri's parents should have had more say in the matter than her husband no matter what. Someone said (here or elsewhere, I forget) that because she was "theirs" longer, they should have that right. I seem to have missed the day when conservatives decided en masse that marriage didn't count for anything at all. Jonathan wrote: I'm also greatly disappointed with the Bush brothers. Yes, I can see why someone could be mad at them for not tossing out the entire constitution. How dare they take their oaths seriously? How dare they act within the scope of the law? What were they thinking, imagining that a document written all those years ago by a bunch of rich dead white men (to borrow the standard line), applies to us today? Throw it out whenever you feel like it, I say! What you want isn't Constitutionally permissible? No problem! Just toss it aside... I must sound like some old man who speaks of how things were "back in the day," but didn't I once hear conservatives saying something about how the Constitution was rather important, even "sacred" (not in religious terms, of course), and that those who would violate it are a most dangerous sort? Perhaps I just dreamt it, but I do believe that an issue erupted in the recent past about how activist judges were a bad thing, but now that the law doesn't go our way, we want them. And executives who violate the Constitution... Forgive me if my memory fails me, but didn't we try to impeach some previous Oval Office resident for perjury? It seems to me that there's something a little frightening about deciding, scant few years later, that we're ready to do away with the law of the land over a single case. Jonathan wrote: There is a verse in the Bible (and I can't remember off the top of my head) that goes something along the lines of "Evil abounds b/c the rightous stand by". I'm not calling them righteous necessarily, but they had the power. They could've gone in that court and said "I know I could face consequences for this, but I believe that what you are doing is wrong and I'm going to do something about it. If they believed the law was incredibly immoral, perhaps, but they would have been obligated, I think, to then resign and face whatever they may. However, it is unclear to me why this case is a matter of murder, whereas when feeding tubes are pulled from other people every day, that's simply "a decision that was made by the family." Jonathan wrote: Dr. King, Abraham Lincoln, Rosa Parks. All three of them were willing to disobey the courts and law to do what they believed were right, two of them even willing to go to jail for it. And the Bush boys did not. All I can think of to say is "Oh, please." Again, I urge some respect for the rule of law, for the Constitution, for the nation, for elected office. This sort of thinking horrifies me. Jonathan wrote: Judge Greer, the justice who's had the biggest hand in this He committed the crime, apparently, of rendering the ruling required by law. In other words, he wasn't an activist judge. Perhaps, though, conservatives don't mind activist judges anymore. Just keep that in mind and don't utter any words of protest next time activist judges rule against your cause. Jonathan wrote: is being publicy bereated by his pastor, a Mr. Williams. Yep, that's right, he used to be a southern baptist. B/C of these comments, the Judge has left the church. And I applaud Pastor Williams. He said that "Until you repent, you are not welcomed in this church". No doubt this church lost money b/c of it. Well, I'll say this much: had that been my church, it wouldn't be anymore. I have no respect whatsoever for that pastor, who fails to understand why a man must do his duly sworn duty and would, essentially, "excommunicate" the man. Also, before you praise that pastor too much, I would ask you to consider whether or not it was in accordance with Matthew 18 for his first contact with Judge Greer regarding the matter to be an angry letter, CCed to the media, demanding that the Judge rule in a certain way. On the one hand, we have a devout Christian judge, asked to rule on a tragic, but legally clear, case -- and one, by the way, that judges see with some regularity --, who has acted in accordance with the laws, been reasonable, etc. On the other hand, we have a publicity-seeking pastor who seems to have acted with the primary purpose of seeing his name in print. Many within the SBC have expressed their opposition to what that church did, regardless of their views on the Schiavo case, as well they should, as that church's actions were eminently unbiblical. Jonathan wrote: We've lost more respect for life. In the early 70's (and I'm relating what's been told to me by people who lived during then) society was told that if abortion is legalized, it would be rare. 4000 babies a day. Did we see that coming? 40 Million babies killed, done away by means of infanticide, slaughtered on the alter of shelfishness. This case isn't even superficially related to Roe or Doe. Jonathan wrote: If I had done to my cat that which the courts allowed to happen to Terri, I'd be doing time. Without question. Not if you followed the time-honored maxim of "shoot, shovel and be quiet." ;) Seriously, though, no, you wouldn't be "doing time," and again, don't divorce this case from all those others like it. You can disagree with what life support, if any, should be pulled, and when, but to act like this is somehow a special case or somehow impugns our society in a way that others do not makes no sense whatsoever. Jonathan wrote: Our courts opened the door for abortion, 40 million dead. Jonathan, this is not about abortion, and it is disingenuous to tie the two together in any way, in my opinion. Jonathan wrote: And now, we've killed a handicapped woman. Handicapped!? It has been said that by changing the words, one can prove almost any point, and it seems that you are trying. Terri Schiavo was not "handicapped." She was PVS. Do you oppose ever ending proactive measures of artificial life support in any case? Because this case was about as severe as you'll find, and I guarantee you that had there not been a dispute between two sets of greedy, morally and ethically challenged people, few would know of this private tragedy, and those who did would not find it ethically wrong to pull the tubes. It happens every day. We can debate the ethics. You might say that feeding tubes are different than other measures, and you may have a point. It is worth entertaining that suggestion. Claiming, however, that Terri was "handicapped" and that this is a case of kill[ing] a handicapped woman, is entirely false. Jonathan wrote: What is next? Who is next? I really think that it would be best to approach this tragedy without the hysteria and to stop acting as if the government is out to kill people. I address such comments not just to you, Jonathan, but to a lot of people. The Schiavo case has brought out the worst in a lot of people, unfortunately, and has caused people to argue things for which I imagine they would berate others under different circumstances. Mrs. Schiavo has passed away; it's okay to mourn her, but the recriminations against those who were drawn into this case, especially Judge Greer, really need to come to an end. Jared Cute and Cuddly Joined: 23 Nov 2002 Posts: 4672 Location: Pennsylvania Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 7:25 pm    Post subject: Coralfish wrote: GusDeHaan wrote: If she was in PVS it wouldn't really affect her - the results of the autopsy will tell us if she was killed in pain, or not. I highly doubt that there will be an autopsy. I believe it was Michael Schiavo's wish shat she be cremated without having one performed. Mr. Schiavo has formally requested one and it going to be performed. That was in doubt for a short while, though, as (this took place before Terri died, while the final appeal was still being made to the 11th Circuit Court) the Schindlers vehemently opposed the idea. They changed their minds quickly, and it was speculated -- but obviously, no proof -- that they were urged to withdraw their opposition because it made it look as if they didn't believe their own arguments about her actual state. (While it can never be proved, of course, I do not believe that they do. While I'd like to be wrong, I am far from convinced of their own sincerity in this matter, as they would have had much to gain if they could have waited until after they obtained custody before letting her die, and even now stand to profit in a number of ways off the death of their daughter.) Eugene Kendall™ The Official Town Hall Nutcase Joined: 24 Apr 2003 Posts: 3713 Location: Grandma Land! Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 7:54 pm    Post subject: to put it plain in simple she wanted to die i believe so they killed her on a lighter note *points finger at jared* double post Jonathan Dungeon Master Joined: 21 Oct 2004 Posts: 2254 Location: Minnesota and/or North Dakota Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 9:49 pm    Post subject: Jared wrote: Jonathan wrote: Todd Friel presented a good arguement (that some of you will no doubt argue against). He said it's not 'contribution to society' or 'quality of life', but quantity of life. Take the pope for instance. He's got a tube up his nose to help him breath. He isn't really productive right now, and at 84 the chances of him getting better a whole lot is pretty slim. Also, Terri wasn't on life support. (note- the rest of this is my arguement). I hold the opinion, (regardless of what those docs said Jared) that she shouldn't have been killed. Whatever you think about this very tragic situation, it was never a "quality of life" case. No one ever argued that because Terri couldn't live a complete life, we had the right to end it. Whatever America may be, we aren't the Netherlands yet. Again, you may have a problem with what happened, but it's highly disingenuous to suggest that this is anything new, as it has been an issue for as long as the ability to prolong life artificially has existed without our society succumbing to the ways of Dr. Kevorkian. Forgive me, but I had heard people argue that. B/C of her medical state (PVS?) people argued her quality of life was low, and she wouldn't want to be alive. I also don't see how this is much different from Dr. Kevorkian's ways. By removing her feeding tube she succumbed to death b/c judges ruled that her life was worthless in that state. Jared wrote: Jonathan wrote: So the question is, has Pandora's box been opened? Who's next? Mentally handicapped people aren't productive to society. People in nursing homes aren't. Should we care for them? Of course. But we are now, as a society, on the slope that will lead to the answer given being yes. Slippery slope arguments sometimes have merit, but this one doesn't. If there's a potentially dangerous slippery slope here, it's Congressional involvement in a matter that was none of their own business. How was it none of their business? In this case, as I saw it, there were no checks and balances to examine the courts decision. The courts had absolute rule. It was a legal issue, but as the people who make the laws and 'check/balance' the court's power, authority and decisions, I saw no problem in their getting involved, especially with someone's life in the balance. And if there was a law prohibiting that, than maybe the validity of that law should be questioned. Jared wrote: (Incidentally, they defied a long-standing ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and did away with accepted legal dogma by transferring jurisdiction in the case.) Just as Abraham Lincoln did in the 1860's. Jared wrote: Terri was not disabled. She was, to use the layman's term, brain-dead. I know you hold that all the doctors in this case claim she was braindead, but I've heard and read conflicting stories. Jared wrote: Our society, even the most devout among us, have always treated such cases differently. Yes, there's room for plenty of disagreement here, but suggestions that this will lead to legalized euthanasia are unfounded and hyperbolic. Again I must disagree with you. Like I said before, in the early 70's people were told that abortion was to help those who had been raped and would only be used in rare and extreme cases. Just over 32 years later and this nation has the blood of 40 million infants on it's hands. I'm not saying that this process will move quickly and we will find ourselves in a Kevorkian type thinking in just a few years, but by allowing this to happen, the door has been opened. Jared wrote: Jonathan wrote: Call me a sensationalist, but we have stepped onto the same slope the Nazis were 70 years ago. Yes, I believe that. They killed those who couldn't contribute or were handicapped etc. That is what was argued in this case, "Her quality of life was low and she wasn't productive". Again, this is entirely unreasonable, and it really doesn't help your argument to bring up the Nazis. I am firmly of the opinion that one ought not compare someone or something to Nazis without a very good reason. I'm tired of hearing everyone who makes a (perceived) wrong decision immediately labeled a Nazi, or a Hitler / Goering / Little Eichmann. I too am tired of 'hearing everyone who makes a (perceived) wrong decision immediately labeled a Nazi'. As a German, and someone who vehemently opposes Nazism and what happened during that horrible time in history, it borders on offensive. Which is why I don't use it much. However, I do fine it applicable here. In the 1930's people who were obviously in poor mental or physical shape, like Mrs. Schiavo, were killed. This case could lead to a similar problem in our country, and with the blatant disrespect for life in this country (abortion, euthansia) I can see it happening down the road. Jared wrote: Jonathan wrote: On another note, I've lost all respect for Mr. Michael Schiavo. He denied the family access to her in her dying moments. I don't know why he did that, but I agree that it was reprehensible. Of course, would you like me to run down the list of appalling things the Schindlers have done? Starting with the fact that they just sold their financial donor list. Or the fact that the reason for their falling out with Michael Schiavo was because he didn't give them "enough" of a slice of the settlement money he got. (Why they deserved any isn't clear.) Or that they'd go on tirades against their strongest supporters, deciding that governors not willing to send in agents to besiege the hospice was worthy of denunciation. I could go on... Michael Schiavo is not a commendable man, but neither are Terri's parents. Both sides are dysfunctional. I never said the Schindler's were upstanding citizens. But on this case I side with them and find Mr. Schiavo's actions to be much more despicable, one of which I mentioned. Jared wrote: Jonathan wrote: I also believed that those atrocious rulings carried out in those courts were in direct violation of the constitution. The constitution gives the right to determine such things to the state, and the only people who violated this were the ones in Congress who seem to think that they have the right to do anything they want. I could say the exact same thing about the judges. And if what they were doing was wrong than I comend congress for trying to step in, to excercise checks and balances. Jared wrote: Also, those rulings were legally correct. Legally correct does not equal "right". Jared wrote: The law is clear on the matter, and the judges scrupulously followed the law, as is their sworn duty. Could you tell me the law so I know what it is you are referring to? And assuming they did, then maybe there needs to be a change in our law books. Jared wrote: Jonathan wrote: The constitution "[holds] these truths to be self-evident, that all [people] are entitled to these basic rights; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have different Constitutions, it seems, as the closest my copy comes to that is the fourteenth amendment, which reads in part, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Of everything I posted and you argued against, I'm most embarrased about that one. I appearently had the wrong document. The Declaration of Independence states Quote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness That is what I was thinking of. And to hold of my arguement that they were violating the constitution, I'll use what you quoted from the 14th amendment-nor shall any State deprive any person of life,, which is what they denied Terri by way of the court. Jared wrote: However, it has been understood for as long as measures to prolong life artificially have existed that denying these is not the same as denying life. Proactive measures of artificial life extension are fine, but to argue that the Constitution requires them goes way beyond the text and would have repercussions I'd rather not think about. Talk about a Pandora's Box! I do not believe that the constitution requires them. However, by denying these measures the end of a life is caused. So while it may not be directly ending a life, the responsibility is still there. Jared wrote: (By the way, if the above were the case, and since suicide is illegal -- at least, attempted and assisted, since you obviously cannot prosecute the completed act -- would that mean that no person has the right to decide for themselves whether or not to undergo medical procedures that doctors thing would prolong / preserve their lives? I really see what you're suggesting as having much more "slippery slope" potential.) You misunderstood me. I'm not saying we shouldn't have the right to make that decision. But Terri couldn't have either way. What I was saying was that since Terri had not made her wishes clear and could not communicate them to doctor or family now, we should've decided on this side of life for her. Jared wrote: Jonathan wrote: They took Terri's life. Not really. As I stated before, not directly. Jared wrote: Jonathan wrote: They took the liberty away from her family to care for Terri. Now here some of you might argue "Micheal was her legal guardian". But no, that shouldn't have been. It was his responsibility to care for her and keep her safe. He didn't. That priveledge should've been taken away from him and given to people, i.e. her family, who were willing to take that responsibility. On what grounds? On the grounds that it was life threatening to her to be under his care. Jared wrote: You can dislike him -- I do -- but no legal grounds existed for depriving him of that right. Now, if such grounds did exist, I would certainly support acting on it, Perhaps those grounds should exist. Jared wrote: but since they did not, I pose a question: as conservatives, are we not rather concerned with the "sanctity of marriage"? I keep hearing that Terri's parents should have had more say in the matter than her husband no matter what. Someone said (here or elsewhere, I forget) that because she was "theirs" longer, they should have that right. I seem to have missed the day when conservatives decided en masse that marriage didn't count for anything at all. Is it sacred at that point? He, as I understand it, was living with another woman, had abused her, and was now trying to get the courts to end her life. IMO, he's overstepped his bounds. Jared wrote: Jonathan wrote: I'm also greatly disappointed with the Bush brothers. Yes, I can see why someone could be mad at them for not tossing out the entire constitution. How dare they take their oaths seriously? How dare they act within the scope of the law? What were they thinking, imagining that a document written all those years ago by a bunch of rich dead white men (to borrow the standard line), applies to us today? Throw it out whenever you feel like it, I say! What you want isn't Constitutionally permissible? No problem! Just toss it aside... How was it that they would be tossing out the constitution? As I understand it they would just be performing checks and balances, perfectly legal. And is it not wrong to disobey authority if authority is wrong? Especially with somone's life in the balance? Jared wrote: I must sound like some old man who speaks of how things were "back in the day," but didn't I once hear conservatives saying something about how the Constitution was rather important, even "sacred" (not in religious terms, of course), and that those who would violate it are a most dangerous sort? Perhaps I just dreamt it, but I do believe that an issue erupted in the recent past about how activist judges were a bad thing, but now that the law doesn't go our way, we want them. And executives who violate the Constitution... Forgive me if my memory fails me, but didn't we try to impeach some previous Oval Office resident for perjury? It seems to me that there's something a little frightening about deciding, scant few years later, that we're ready to do away with the law of the land over a single case. I never said we should do away with the law of the land. After this case though certain laws validity should be considered. Just b/c it's on the books doesn't make it right. Jared wrote: Jonathan wrote: There is a verse in the Bible (and I can't remember off the top of my head) that goes something along the lines of "Evil abounds b/c the rightous stand by". I'm not calling them righteous necessarily, but they had the power. They could've gone in that court and said "I know I could face consequences for this, but I believe that what you are doing is wrong and I'm going to do something about it. If they believed the law was incredibly immoral, perhaps, but they would have been obligated, I think, to then resign and face whatever they may. However, it is unclear to me why this case is a matter of murder, whereas when feeding tubes are pulled from other people every day, that's simply "a decision that was made by the family." This case was arguably different. Her wishes weren't appearent and, while she did depend on that tube, she wasn't on 'life support'. Jared wrote: Jonathan wrote: Dr. King, Abraham Lincoln, Rosa Parks. All three of them were willing to disobey the courts and law to do what they believed were right, two of them even willing to go to jail for it. And the Bush boys did not. All I can think of to say is "Oh, please." Again, I urge some respect for the rule of law, for the Constitution, for the nation, for elected office. This sort of thinking horrifies me. What I am saying is if the law is wrong, should we disobey it. The only law I find it abhorable to disobey at any time is that which is found in the Bible. There isn't any law in there which is wrong; human law can be in error. Jared wrote: Jonathan wrote: Judge Greer, the justice who's had the biggest hand in this He committed the crime, apparently, of rendering the ruling required by law. In other words, he wasn't an activist judge. Perhaps, though, conservatives don't mind activist judges anymore. Just keep that in mind and don't utter any words of protest next time activist judges rule against your cause. He was an activist judge. I don't see how it was required by law (and if it was that law should be examined and possibly changed). I am protesting as he made a ruling contrary to my 'cause'. Second of all, since when do judges have the final say? As I keep saying, do not checks and balances exist anymore? Jared wrote: Jonathan wrote: is being publicy bereated by his pastor, a Mr. Williams. Yep, that's right, he used to be a southern baptist. B/C of these comments, the Judge has left the church. And I applaud Pastor Williams. He said that "Until you repent, you are not welcomed in this church". No doubt this church lost money b/c of it. Well, I'll say this much: had that been my church, it wouldn't be anymore. I have no respect whatsoever for that pastor, who fails to understand why a man must do his duly sworn duty and would, essentially, "excommunicate" the man. Also, before you praise that pastor too much, I would ask you to consider whether or not it was in accordance with Matthew 18 for his first contact with Judge Greer regarding the matter to be an angry letter, CCed to the media, demanding that the Judge rule in a certain way. If that is what he did, then I agree, the pastor could've handled it better (which part of Matt 18?). However, if he was asking that the judge consider his duty to Christ as well as the law, then good for him. The law is not the final word. It seems to me that in this whole thing you're saying "Well, it was morally wrong, but it was legal so there isn't a problem." and I disagree with that. My duty to Christ and following what's in the Bible supercedes following man's law. Jared wrote: On the one hand, we have a devout Christian judge, asked to rule on a tragic, but legally clear, case -- and one, by the way, that judges see with some regularity --, who has acted in accordance with the laws, been reasonable, etc. On the other hand, we have a publicity-seeking pastor who seems to have acted with the primary purpose of seeing his name in print. Many within the SBC have expressed their opposition to what that church did, regardless of their views on the Schiavo case, as well they should, as that church's actions were eminently unbiblical. Once again, while they could've handled the situation better, this doesn't change my opinion. How many pastor's would beseech a member b/c of something that is arguably wrong? Jared wrote: Jonathan wrote: We've lost more respect for life. In the early 70's (and I'm relating what's been told to me by people who lived during then) society was told that if abortion is legalized, it would be rare. 4000 babies a day. Did we see that coming? 40 Million babies killed, done away by means of infanticide, slaughtered on the alter of shelfishness. This case isn't even superficially related to Roe or Doe. And again I disagree. It deals with 'life' issues, and see it as a fine reference. Jared wrote: Jonathan wrote: If I had done to my cat that which the courts allowed to happen to Terri, I'd be doing time. Without question. Not if you followed the time-honored maxim of "shoot, shovel and be quiet." *laughs* Ok, ok. But if the police found out about it, I'd be in trouble. Jared wrote: Seriously, though, no, you wouldn't be "doing time," and again, don't divorce this case from all those others like it. You can disagree with what life support, if any, should be pulled, and when, but to act like this is somehow a special case or somehow impugns our society in a way that others do not makes no sense whatsoever. But it is different. We had two factions fighting for the right to decide for her, as she hadn't left a living will. Jared wrote: Jonathan wrote: Our courts opened the door for abortion, 40 million dead. Jonathan, this is not about abortion, and it is disingenuous to tie the two together in any way, in my opinion. Again, I disagree. It deals with life issues, as does the debate over abortion. And I was using Roe v Wade as a parallel. Jared wrote: Jonathan wrote: And now, we've killed a handicapped woman. Handicapped!? It has been said that by changing the words, one can prove almost any point, and it seems that you are trying. Terri Schiavo was not "handicapped." She was PVS. Do you oppose ever ending proactive measures of artificial life support in any case? No I do not. However, with the family willing to care for her and her wishes unclear, I believe it was wrong to do so in this case. Jared wrote: Because this case was about as severe as you'll find, and I guarantee you that had there not been a dispute between two sets of greedy, morally and ethically challenged people, few would know of this private tragedy, and those who did would not find it ethically wrong to pull the tubes. It happens every day. I followed this case long before it was thrust into the spotlight, and felt it wrong back then too. And while it does happen every day, the circumstances in this case caused it to be different. Jared wrote: We can debate the ethics. You might say that feeding tubes are different than other measures, and you may have a point. It is worth entertaining that suggestion. Claiming, however, that Terri was "handicapped" and that this is a case of kill[ing] a handicapped woman, is entirely false. I'll admit, using handicapped was probably the wrong choice of words. However, I can see it leading to that. Jared wrote: Jonathan wrote: What is next? Who is next? I really think that it would be best to approach this tragedy without the hysteria and to stop acting as if the government is out to kill people. I'm not saying the gov't is out to kill people. However, they failed to prevent a death in this case. Jared wrote: I address such comments not just to you, Jonathan, but to a lot of people. The Schiavo case has brought out the worst in a lot of people, unfortunately, and has caused people to argue things for which I imagine they would berate others under different circumstances. Mrs. Schiavo has passed away; it's okay to mourn her, but the recriminations against those who were drawn into this case, especially Judge Greer, really need to come to an end. Than we can agree to disagree, especially since I don't particuarly want to keep debating this with you. -Jonathan Christian Cowgirl Doesn't Post Enough to Get a Cool Status Joined: 29 Aug 2004 Posts: 594 Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:52 am    Post subject: Jonathan wrote: Jared wrote: Jonathan wrote: If I had done to my cat that which the courts allowed to happen to Terri, I'd be doing time. Without question. Not if you followed the time-honored maxim of "shoot, shovel and be quiet." *laughs* Ok, ok. But if the police found out about it, I'd be in trouble. Actually not, if you had a brain damaged cat you would have the choice to put her down. For a long time I really didn't know what to think about this case, until I read this post from someone on a different message board: Quote: So setting aside these three points, let's look at the "ethical" perspective that COULD come from the overview of the situation if you were the husband of this woman. I'll go so far as to use myself and the decision that I'd make for my wife in this case. Let's be clear first: My wife and I have both spoken about this and agree 100%. We would treat one another in the same way as I'm about to present. She would do for me what I would do for her. If my wife were to have been a vegetable for a period of time and the only thing keeping her alive was a machine (made by man), I would fight just as hard as Terry's husband has fought to get this thing removed. Why? Because KNOWING that the doctors have seen no activity in her brain and I can see NO sign of life in her eyes, this would not be the state and condition that I would want to remember her. The longer that my wife would remain on this machine without being able to make a decision one way or the other would break my heart. Not only because I would see the "body" of my wife without my wife inside, but more importantly (and perhaps the most hurtful) would be because the longer she stays on that machine... the further I go from having a memory of who she was as my wife. Imagine that you've been married for 10 years and your spouse is in a vegetable state for 15 years after that (when you hit your 25th anniversary). Which memory do you have of your loved one? The one when they had life or the one when man was keeping them alive through technology? Most of us would eventually forget the life that existed 15 years before. Can any of you right now remember where you were and what you were doing clearly 15 years ago? If I think about it, I can gain a foggy concept of where I was, but have very little connection to it (if any). Ethically, many have been quick to refer to Terry's husband horribly on the basis of what he may have done in past years, what he may do in other areas of his life right now, or who he is as a person. He may be the worst man in the world, but the issue of whether or not Terry should be taken off the feeding tube isn't about her husband's life... it's about Terry and her mental incapacitation of nearly 15 years while man has kept her alive. Surely none of us would say that GOD is keeping her alive, for this has clearly not been about God. So it comes down to a couple of final things... 1. We all would agree that Terry doesn't have the capacity to make this decision on her own. Which means that the decision comes down to someone who has the right to make it, irregardless of what the entire nation thinks of it. A decision DOES have to be made and the parents, sorry to say, have nothing to do with it. 2. The husband has made his case to the judge and the judge has sided with him. That judge's decision to support the husband has been supported as high as the Supreme Court. Why? Because the S.C. is FULLY aware that the parents don't have a case by the laws of marriage. Do I empathize with the parents in the fact that they will lose their daughter "officially" through this process? Sure I do. But when was the last time that they truly were WITH their daughter... the ACTUAL daughter? Terry has been dead for many, many years only dragged through the motions of appearing alive by man's efforts to play God. And look where it's gotten us... we, as a nation, are debating on whether or not a woman should continue to be kept alive on a feeding machine. I have to agree with that. Quote: She isn't a child anymore. Irregardless of how the nation may perceive the husband (which can be skewed depending on how one views him, not TRULY knowing him), his wife's life is his responsibility. As much as the parents may wish to play a part in this, their daughter is not theirs to make decisions for any longer. And with this, when she married Mr. Schiavo she became his responsibility. Neo3DGfx Somewhat Aging Member Joined: 22 Oct 2003 Posts: 469 Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 11:51 am    Post subject: Christian Cowgirl wrote: Jonathan wrote: Jared wrote: Jonathan wrote: If I had done to my cat that which the courts allowed to happen to Terri, I'd be doing time. Without question. Not if you followed the time-honored maxim of "shoot, shovel and be quiet." *laughs* Ok, ok. But if the police found out about it, I'd be in trouble. Actually not, if you had a brain damaged cat you would have the choice to put her down. Not from starvation. That would be to "inhumane." Lethal injection wrote: The injection is intravenous and is usually a mix of compounds, designed to induce rapid unconsciousness followed by death through muscular paralysis of the lungs and/or by inducing cardiac depolarization. In the US, sodium thiopental is the common agent to bring unconsciousness, with suxamethonium chloride, pancuronium bromide or tubocurarine chloride as the paralysing drug (muscle relaxant), potassium chloride to cause cardiac arrest or one of each kind. Death usually results within five minutes, although the entire procedure can take up to 45 minutes. Euthanasia wrote: In 2003, in the Netherlands 1626 cases were officially reported of euthanasia in the sense of a physician causing death (1.2 % of all deaths). Usually the sedative sodium thiopental is intravenously administered to induce a coma, and after making sure the patient is in a deep coma, typically after some minutes, a muscle relaxant is administered to stop the breathing and cause death. ... In 2003, in Oregon 42 cases of physician assisted suicide were reported (0.14 % of all deaths), all by drinking a strong barbiturate potion. Terri Schiavo wrote: While the cause of death has not yet been determined, it is probable that it was due to heart failure resulting from the effects of dehydration, which interferes with body chemistry and causes abnormalities in the heart rate known as arrhythmia. If Michael Schiavo wanted his wife dead, he should have had her euthanized, for lack of a better word, rather then have her starved to death. I do not belive in euthanasia, animal euthanasia, mercy killing, etc, but I am trying to explain that her death was not painless. She lived 13 days without nurishment! It discomforting when you havn't had food for half a day, and you have headaches when you haven't had enough water! All of my quotes came from Wikipædia Kanimoto Seasoned Veteran Member Joined: 28 May 2004 Posts: 663 Location: Konohagakure (Hidden Leaf Village) Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 2:25 pm    Post subject: I agree with you, Neo3DGfx, and with Jonathan also, as does my dad (my mom agrees with Jared, I think). I know I'm late in saying this, but it was sad when Terri Schiavo died... dawningoftime Child's Portion Diet Mini Cheeseburger Joined: 13 Apr 2004 Posts: 99 Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 11:56 pm    Post subject: The High Court has spoken: Quote: In 1983, Nancy Cruzan was 26 years old when she was involved in a single-car accident that left her with irreversible brain damage. Within a month, doctors determined that she was in a persistent vegetative state. She was kept alive by a feeding tube and constant medical care. Her parents fought a legal battle to have the feeding tube removed and the case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Their bid to have her disconnected from the tube was supported by the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Neurology, the American Nurses Association and the Society for the Right to Die. It was the first right-to-die case heard by the U.S. top court. In 1990, the Supreme Court decided that the Cruzans did not have a constitutional right to remove her from the feeding tube and that states have the right to demand "clear and convincing evidence" on what the victim would want in such cases. Her parents continued their legal battle and convinced a Missouri judge with new evidence later that year that their daughter would not have wanted to be kept alive. The judge ruled in their favour in late 1990. She was removed from the feeding tube and died 12 days later. CBC emphisis mine I could be wrong, but I've only heard this case brought up once and that was on MSNBC during Hardball. Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First     The Town Hall Forum Index -> Impolite Company All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next Page 6 of 7 Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group