-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Draka
Wonder Woman
As far as I know when this whole thing started there was no "extramarital" affair. So one has nothing to do with the other. I, personally, am just thinking..."about time". Her only problem was not just that she couldnot feed herself, she could NOT interact with others, the doctor's even have said that she might be able to see faces of sorts but had no comprehension or communication abilities at all. She was, in essence, a wide awake vegetable. And that is no way to live.
jamaesi
To Save A Lamb
Is her husband not allowed to move on?
To want your loved ones to hang on to your death bed for decades while you are in a vegative stage is selfish. If I was in a coma for so long I would want my plug pulled and my SO happy, even if it is without me.
And again, Terri will not starve to death and be in agony. This is an entirely different case than the ones of hungry, third-world nations. She will pass peacefully... and I hope she finds her way to a safe and happy place on the other side.
To want your loved ones to hang on to your death bed for decades while you are in a vegative stage is selfish. If I was in a coma for so long I would want my plug pulled and my SO happy, even if it is without me.
This slippery slope is laughable. This is her husband, not some random person traversing the hospital. Spouses and family decide; they, actually knowing the person, will probably choose best.
And again, Terri will not starve to death and be in agony. This is an entirely different case than the ones of hungry, third-world nations. She will pass peacefully... and I hope she finds her way to a safe and happy place on the other side.
The removal of the feeding tube was the morally proper thing to do. The medical opinion is that she has no feelings and therefore she will not suffer as the result of withdrawal of food. The evidence we have indicates that this is what she would have wanted. The judge who made the decision to remove the feeding tube is doing what he believe is the morally proper thing to do and he is certainly better qualified to make the proper moral decision than the yokels gathered outside the hospice putting on a demonstration. We should always respect the right of a person to bring about his own death. And this includes the right to use an assistant (i.e. assiosted suicide).
Jaymes
The cake is a lie
How is she an inconvenience? It would be more than simple for him to go before a judge to get a divorce. I'm not buying that line.EEWRED said:
What boggles my mind is how you refuse to let her pass on. People can be complete vegetables with no chance of recovery, and they are arguably alive. Should we keep them breathing and force food into their system when they're like that?
Green Gaia
Veteran Member
Ok... I admit, I haven't read everything about this case, but if the only that is wrong with this woman, as some assert, is that she can't feed herself and her family wants to keep her alive, why don't they take her home and feed and care for her? Let the husband get on with his life if that's what he needs to do.
Green Gaia
Veteran Member
How long do we keep people like Terri "alive"? Indefinitely?
Quoth The Raven
Half Arsed Muse
It doesn't matter a jot whether or not it is the life any of us here would or would not prefer. What matters is that the court has ruled that it is the life Terri would not prefer, and they are making the decision based on what they think her wishes would have been. If you want to get into the nitty gritties of us not having the right to decide who lives or dies, well, that decision was made 15 years ago when the feeding tube was inserted. Without it she would have been dead for the last 15 years, instead of stuck in the middle of a nasty **** fight between her parents and her husband, who quite frankly I don't think people have the right to call names unless they know him personally. I knew nothing about this until the first thread surfaced on here a month or so ago, but since then I've heard a lot about it, and quite frankly I think many of the people working so hard at badmouthing Michael Schiavo are so busy seeing the worst in a man none of them know that they can't see the forest for the trees.EEWRED said:
'He's doing it for the money!'
He knocks back vast sums of money to walk away and what does he get for that?
'Well, obviously he's being paid off by someone else.'
'He just wants her dead so he can continue his affair!'
This would be the 'affair' that her continued existence has apparently been no impediment to prior to this? There's a motive for ya:'I want her gone so she no longer interferes in something that she hasn't interfered in.'
Someone come up wth a sinister motive that makes an ounce of sense (and hasn't been refuted) as to why he's spent so many years of his life fighting this battle when it would have been so much easier for him to just get a divorce and walk away. Please.
All I can see at this point are parents who can't bear to let go (because you're not supposed to outlive your children, are you) and some bloke who is getting verbally spat upon at every turn.
And please. lets not get into the whole 'will of God' thing, because quite frankly if it hadn't been circumvented with a feeding tube, the 'will of God' would have seen her dead for the last 15 years.
Let the woman die in peace.
M
Majikthise
Guest
My wife and I have discussed this issue at length.I do not want my parents to decide what happens to me and make my wifes life any worse than it would be .My parents have not been my legal gaurdians for 22 years even though they still treat me like a child sometimes.As a result we are going to have legal documents drawn up to protect each other in the unlikely event of this situation.I'm sure someone would try to attack my wife's character in any event.
Quoth The Raven
Half Arsed Muse
Character's an easy target when there's nothing else.Majikthise said:
Saw11_2000
Well-Known Member
That's a very smart things to do to ensure your wishes are carried out.Majikthise said:
Off topic:NB=New Bedfaaaaahd?
BUDDY
User of Aspercreme
March 17, 2005, 7:58 a.m.
Torturing Terri Schiavo
Shed be better off if she were a terrorist.
A few months back, I wrote an article for Commentary arguing that we ought to reconsider our anti-torture laws. The argument wasnt novel. It echoed contentions that had been made with great persuasive force by Harvards Professor Alan Dershowitz: that under circumstances of imminent harm to thousands of moral innocents (the so-called ticking bomb scenario), it would be appropriate to inflict, under court-supervision, intense but non-lethal pain in an effort to wring information from a morally culpable person a terrorist known to be complicit in the plot. As one might predict with such a third rail, my mail was copious and indignant. Opening the door by even a sliver for torture, I was admonished, was the most reprehensible of slippery slopes. No matter how well-intentioned was the idea, no matter the lives that might be saved, no matter how certain we might be about the guilt of the detainee, the very thought that such a thing might be legal would render us no better than the savages we were fighting.
Well, lo and behold, a court-ordered torture is set to begin in Florida on Friday at 1 P.M.
It will not produce a scintilla of socially useful information. It will not save a single innocent life. It is not narrowly targeted on a morally culpable person the torture-victim is herself as innocent as she is defenseless. It is not, moreover, meant to be brief and non-lethal: The torture will take about two excruciating weeks, and its sole and only purpose is to kill the victim.
On Friday afternoon, unless humanity intervenes, the state of Florida is scheduled to begin its court-ordered torture-murder of Terri Schiavo, whose only crime is that she is an inconvenience. A nuisance to a faithless husband grown tired of the toll on his new love interest and depleting bank account an account that was inflated only because a jury, in 1992, awarded him over a million dollars, mostly as a trust to pay for Terris continued care, in a medical malpractice verdict.
In this instance, though, deafening is the only word for the silence of my former interlocutors -civil-liberties activists characteristically set on hysteria auto-pilot the moment an al Qaeda terrorist is rumored to have been sent to bed without supper by Don Rumsfeld or Al Gonzales (something that would, of course, be rank rumor since, if you kill or try to kill enough Americans, you can be certain our government will get you three halal squares a day).
Not so Terri Schiavo. She will be starved and dehydrated. Until she is dead. By court order.
Terri is a 40-year-old woman who suffered brain damage after a diagnosed heart attack when she was 26. In state legal proceedings dominated by macabre right-to-die activists, a judge found her to be reduced to a permanent vegetative state (PVS), drawing on examinations that appear grossly inadequate to the task of what objective specialists say is a complex diagnosis. Whether she would technically be found a PVS case by a court that was honestly interested in getting a real fix on her condition rather than breaking new ground in just how far the Left can go in deciding whose life has value is beside the point. She is alive and, periodically, both alert and responsive.
Her parents love her and want to care for her. Imagine if you had a child who was defenseless, dependent, and vulnerable many of us, indeed, need not imagine and the state told you not only to step aside but that you had to watch, helpless, while it took two weeks to kill her. Thats whats happening in Florida. Starting Friday.
On another Friday, seven years ago, Mohammed Daoud al-`Owhali and Khalfan Khamis Mohammed blew up the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing over 240 people. They were brought to the United States for trial. They were given, at public expense, multiple, highly experienced capital lawyers, and permitted extensive audiences to plead with the Justice Department not to seek the death penalty. When a capital indictment nevertheless was filed, they were given weeks of voir dire to ensure a jury of twelve people open to the notion that even the lives of mass-murderers have value. They were then given seven months of trial and sentencing proceedings, suffuse with every legal and factual presumption that their lives had worth and should be spared. And so they were.
Thats what the law says we must do for terrorists seeking to destroy our country and to slaughter us indiscriminately.
What is the law doing for Terri Schiavo?
What kind of law is it, what kind of society is it, that says the lives of Khalfan Khamis Mohammed and Mohammed Daoud al-`Owhalis have value over which we must anguish and for the sustenance of which we must expend tens of thousands annually but Terri Schiavos is readily dispensable? By court-ordered torture over the wrenching pleas of parents ready and willing to care for her?
What kind of society goes into a lather over the imposition of bright lights and stress positions for barbarians who might have information that will save lives, but yawns while a defenseless woman who hasnt hurt anyone is willfully starved and dehydrated? By a court the bulwark purportedly protecting our right to life?
The torture starts Friday, at 1 P.M. Unless we do something to stop it.
Andrew C. McCarthy, who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
* * *
Torturing Terri Schiavo
Shed be better off if she were a terrorist.
A few months back, I wrote an article for Commentary arguing that we ought to reconsider our anti-torture laws. The argument wasnt novel. It echoed contentions that had been made with great persuasive force by Harvards Professor Alan Dershowitz: that under circumstances of imminent harm to thousands of moral innocents (the so-called ticking bomb scenario), it would be appropriate to inflict, under court-supervision, intense but non-lethal pain in an effort to wring information from a morally culpable person a terrorist known to be complicit in the plot. As one might predict with such a third rail, my mail was copious and indignant. Opening the door by even a sliver for torture, I was admonished, was the most reprehensible of slippery slopes. No matter how well-intentioned was the idea, no matter the lives that might be saved, no matter how certain we might be about the guilt of the detainee, the very thought that such a thing might be legal would render us no better than the savages we were fighting.
Well, lo and behold, a court-ordered torture is set to begin in Florida on Friday at 1 P.M.
It will not produce a scintilla of socially useful information. It will not save a single innocent life. It is not narrowly targeted on a morally culpable person the torture-victim is herself as innocent as she is defenseless. It is not, moreover, meant to be brief and non-lethal: The torture will take about two excruciating weeks, and its sole and only purpose is to kill the victim.
On Friday afternoon, unless humanity intervenes, the state of Florida is scheduled to begin its court-ordered torture-murder of Terri Schiavo, whose only crime is that she is an inconvenience. A nuisance to a faithless husband grown tired of the toll on his new love interest and depleting bank account an account that was inflated only because a jury, in 1992, awarded him over a million dollars, mostly as a trust to pay for Terris continued care, in a medical malpractice verdict.
In this instance, though, deafening is the only word for the silence of my former interlocutors -civil-liberties activists characteristically set on hysteria auto-pilot the moment an al Qaeda terrorist is rumored to have been sent to bed without supper by Don Rumsfeld or Al Gonzales (something that would, of course, be rank rumor since, if you kill or try to kill enough Americans, you can be certain our government will get you three halal squares a day).
Not so Terri Schiavo. She will be starved and dehydrated. Until she is dead. By court order.
Terri is a 40-year-old woman who suffered brain damage after a diagnosed heart attack when she was 26. In state legal proceedings dominated by macabre right-to-die activists, a judge found her to be reduced to a permanent vegetative state (PVS), drawing on examinations that appear grossly inadequate to the task of what objective specialists say is a complex diagnosis. Whether she would technically be found a PVS case by a court that was honestly interested in getting a real fix on her condition rather than breaking new ground in just how far the Left can go in deciding whose life has value is beside the point. She is alive and, periodically, both alert and responsive.
Her parents love her and want to care for her. Imagine if you had a child who was defenseless, dependent, and vulnerable many of us, indeed, need not imagine and the state told you not only to step aside but that you had to watch, helpless, while it took two weeks to kill her. Thats whats happening in Florida. Starting Friday.
On another Friday, seven years ago, Mohammed Daoud al-`Owhali and Khalfan Khamis Mohammed blew up the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing over 240 people. They were brought to the United States for trial. They were given, at public expense, multiple, highly experienced capital lawyers, and permitted extensive audiences to plead with the Justice Department not to seek the death penalty. When a capital indictment nevertheless was filed, they were given weeks of voir dire to ensure a jury of twelve people open to the notion that even the lives of mass-murderers have value. They were then given seven months of trial and sentencing proceedings, suffuse with every legal and factual presumption that their lives had worth and should be spared. And so they were.
Thats what the law says we must do for terrorists seeking to destroy our country and to slaughter us indiscriminately.
What is the law doing for Terri Schiavo?
What kind of law is it, what kind of society is it, that says the lives of Khalfan Khamis Mohammed and Mohammed Daoud al-`Owhalis have value over which we must anguish and for the sustenance of which we must expend tens of thousands annually but Terri Schiavos is readily dispensable? By court-ordered torture over the wrenching pleas of parents ready and willing to care for her?
What kind of society goes into a lather over the imposition of bright lights and stress positions for barbarians who might have information that will save lives, but yawns while a defenseless woman who hasnt hurt anyone is willfully starved and dehydrated? By a court the bulwark purportedly protecting our right to life?
The torture starts Friday, at 1 P.M. Unless we do something to stop it.
Andrew C. McCarthy, who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
* * *
Saw11_2000
Well-Known Member
Very valid points EEWRED.
I'm curious as to your personal beliefs why she should be kept alive. Do you feel it is morally wrong to kill a crippled human being? Or do you regard her as normal? Do you feel sympathetic toward her situation?
Have you ever heard: "If you love someone, let them go"?
I think it might be best for her, in this situation.
I'm curious as to your personal beliefs why she should be kept alive. Do you feel it is morally wrong to kill a crippled human being? Or do you regard her as normal? Do you feel sympathetic toward her situation?
Have you ever heard: "If you love someone, let them go"?
I think it might be best for her, in this situation.
M
Majikthise
Guest
Doesn't change my mind.
Green Gaia
Veteran Member
Nice unbiased article there... :sarcastic
It didn't answer my question though... will Terri ever be allowed to die?
It didn't answer my question though... will Terri ever be allowed to die?
Quoth The Raven
Half Arsed Muse
So this weeks sinister motive is 'advancing the cause of the left'?
Oh, and Maize, I'll answer that question for you. She'll be allowed to die after her parents are dead, unless it suits someone's agenda to keep her alive a little longer.
Oh, and Maize, I'll answer that question for you. She'll be allowed to die after her parents are dead, unless it suits someone's agenda to keep her alive a little longer.
BUDDY
User of Aspercreme
The article just makes some interesting points I thought. I don't believe in conspiracy theories, so lady_lazarus, I don't think that there is a motive politically here at all. I know now that I won't convince any of you that this is the wrong thing to do. I just can't agree with starving a person to death. That is about it for me on this issue. I respect the opinion of each and everyone of you and hold your beliefs and opinions dear, whether I agree with them or not. I do believe that all of you think that this is the humane thing to do, I don't doubt that. I just can't agree and therefore become very passionate about my stance because we are talking about a person's life. I hope you all can understand.
Saw11_2000
Well-Known Member
It doesn't classify as torture, but I just don't think its morally right.
I sure as hell wouldn't want to be starved if I had to die even if I couldn't feel it.
If for some reason I couldn't feel pain, I wouldn't want to be treated in-human. I wouldn't want to be an experiment, or have exploratory surgery performed on my regardless of whether or not I feel it. I think it is a certain level of respect and humane treatment we should adhere to. Just my 2 cents.
I sure as hell wouldn't want to be starved if I had to die even if I couldn't feel it.
If for some reason I couldn't feel pain, I wouldn't want to be treated in-human. I wouldn't want to be an experiment, or have exploratory surgery performed on my regardless of whether or not I feel it. I think it is a certain level of respect and humane treatment we should adhere to. Just my 2 cents.
Quoth The Raven
Half Arsed Muse
I think if you trudge back through the posts on all the threads about this, the starvation doesn't rest easy with most people, even those who believe she should be let go. I think angellous made a valid point earlier about starvation through the removal of a feeding tube though. She hasn't actually eaten anything in 15 years, so the discomfort we associate with not eating is something she actually already experienced - if we assume she's capable of experiencing it - a long time ago.EEWRED said: