Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
...I want to remind everyone its easy to say let her die, when its not your child laying there.
I'm willing to bet that it's easy to say let her live when you aren't the one changing her diapers, bathing her, and constantly moving her around to prevent bedsores. I wonder how many antibiotic shots she's had to receive because of bedsores.
I bet her own parents don't even spend that kind of time with her.
Rhetorical Question (because a posted answer would be suspect): how many of us would be willing to live her existance? Who would be willing to trade places with her?
She exists in one of two possibilities:
1)She's totally unaware and actually in a persistant vegetative state. In which case she should be allowed to terminate naturally.
2) She's partially or even totally aware of her situation and unable to communicate or function. In which case she should be allowed to terminate naturally.
The religious right, if they truly were adhering to the principles of Christianity, should be the FIRST to step up and agree with the concept of allowing her to terminate naturally. Don't they believe she'll "ascend to a heaven?" Isn't this alleged heave a "better place?" If there's a god, her current state of existance is definately a sign that it's calling her "home."
But what we really see, is the real hidden agenda: this is yet another attempt by the "religious right" to get a foot-hold in the political realm through the "right to life" issue. They even have their puppet, GW Bush spouting "right to life" rhetoric. Ironically, Bush, as governor of Texas, signed a bill that would allow hospitals to pull the plugs on indigent patients or those patients that weren't properly insured. Now he's talking about how "it's about the right to live."
What freaking hypocrits! They might as well say, "We believe in heaven and god and all that crap, but screw Terri, let her exist in a living hell for as long as it takes for us to get a better grip on the politics of the United States."
I looked through the new arguments and decided to drop this little tidbit in:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/23/opinion/polls/main682674.shtml)
Inside it is a comprehensive polling section done by CBS news in relationship to the public opinion on the Terri Schiavo case. Interpret as you will.
From a piece of the CBS article:
An overwhelming 82 percent of the public believes the Congress and President should stay out of the matter. There is widespread cynicism about Congress' motives for getting involved: 74 percent say Congress intervened to advance a political agenda, not because they cared what happened to Terri Schiavo. Public approval of Congress has suffered as a result; at 34 percent, it is the lowest it has been since 1997, dropping from 41 percent last month. Now at 43 percent, President Bush’s approval rating is also lower than it was a month ago.
As for sample size:
This poll was conducted among a nationwide random sample of 737 adults interviewed by telephone March 21-22, 2005. The error due to sampling could be plus or minus four percentage points for results based on all adults. Error for subgroups may be higher.
They should, familial matters shouldn't be government responsibility.
I think people should stop using this thing for their own good, and start thinking about Terri Schiavo. What is best for her? To keep living a life that no one would want to live, or let her go so she can at some peace? But i'm not sure that removing a feeding tube is such a good way of letting her die.
But she's already pretty much dead. All the feeding tube is doing is keeping the body from rotting. That way the parents can continue falsely thinking their daughter is still alive, and spend their time and money keeping their daughter's body in a hospital bed. The parents claim that through medication she might get better... sorry but no, this is brain damage, not a virus. No amount of meditation could make you "grow a new brain."
If that was my loved one, I'd have them pull the plug, and instead of denying that my loved one is dead, move on and live with the memories I have of my loved one.
I think what he was saying was that it's rediculous that the only way to let her die is for her to starve to death, as opposed to doing what we do for animals who are in a similar condition.
Some people view active euthanasia as murder. *shrugs*
I think it's the most humane thing to do, but not everyone shares that view.
I think what he was saying was that it's rediculous that the only way to let her die is for her to starve to death, as opposed to doing what we do for animals who are in a similar condition.
Yes, and why should we treat people who are in such rediculous pain so terribly, when someone on deathrow who deserves a painful death, gets a quick and painless death. I think we should re-think somethings.
Originally posted by Feanaro
Yes, and why should we treat people who are in such rediculous pain so terribly, when someone on deathrow who deserves a painful death, gets a quick and painless death. I think we should re-think somethings.
Well, she can't feel anything, so they say, but who really knows whats going on inside of her? Even Skinwalker posted some possibilites, which I too, have wondered about. :-( The second, would be the worst possibility imaginable.
I'm willing to bet that it's easy to say let her live when you aren't the one changing her diapers, bathing her, and constantly moving her around to prevent bedsores. I wonder how many antibiotic shots she's had to receive because of bedsores.
I am not saying let her live, part of me wants her suffering to end (if there is any suffering) and then the other part values her life (if there really is a life to save, it seems not) I have done a lot of thinking about this, and I can't come to any conclusion I agree with 100%, if thats even possible. It's not my decision though.
No seriously, this is such a minor thing, fattened up by the media and politicians who want to capitalize on the situation.
Once again, it's all about the money. :snear:
Skinwalker, to be honest I don't think (and I could be wrong) that the use of religion should be taken seriously. I think they are using it as a tool to get what they want, disreguarding the key points of Christianity, and perhaps their daughter's well-being.
Originally posted by SkinWalker
I'm willing to bet that it's easy to say let her live when you aren't the one changing her diapers, bathing her, and constantly moving her around to prevent bedsores. I wonder how many antibiotic shots she's had to receive because of bedsores.
Make the parents do those things and pay for the medical bills if they want to keep her alive so bad.
Originally posted by SkinWalker
The religious right, if they truly were adhering to the principles of Christianity, should be the FIRST to step up and agree with the concept of allowing her to terminate naturally. Don't they believe she'll "ascend to a heaven?" Isn't this alleged heave a "better place?" If there's a god, her current state of existance is definately a sign that it's calling her "home."
Just becuase the religeos believe there is heaven dose not mean the want to go right now, ask any preist if they beleive in heven. They will all say they do. "wanna go right now?' they will say "No, god has a pourpose for our lives.
Originally posted by SkinWalker
But what we really see, is the real hidden agenda: this is yet another attempt by the "religious right" to get a foot-hold in the political realm through the "right to life" issue. They even have their puppet, GW Bush spouting "right to life" rhetoric. Ironically, Bush, as governor of Texas, signed a bill that would allow hospitals to pull the plugs on indigent patients or those patients that weren't properly insured. Now he's talking about how "it's about the right to live."
What freaking hypocrits! They might as well say, "We believe in heaven and god and all that crap, but screw Terri, let her exist in a living hell for as long as it takes for us to get a better grip on the politics of the United States."
I totaly agree on that part! Bu$h does a lot of flip-floping himself, as do all the fundementalist who support him.
Originally posted by InsaneSith
Some people view active euthanasia as murder. *shrugs*
I think it's the most humane thing to do, but not everyone shares that view.
I agree. I can't believe the way they're letting it happen. It just doesn't seem right. I mean, she's going to die anyway; at this point it's basically inevitable, so why not just euthanize her and let her go? I truly do not see how knowingly starving a person is more humane than euthanization.
Urg. Allow me to copy and repaste.
- Removing her nutrients will not cause her any pain. She has no cerebral cortex and therefore cannot feel hunger or thirst. It will be painless. And anyway, it's the only legal way to let her go.
Originally posted by Lady Jedi
so why not just euthanize her and let her go? Some view it as murder, where as taking away her nutrients is natural order, and thus not murder. Like I've said many times, people are weird and they're incredibly fickle about their compassion.
In this case removing feeding tubes falls into the same category (no artifical means of life support and no heroic measures of recovery) as a patient rejecting life-prolonging medication, turning off a ventalator machine, or refusing CPR if that patient stops breathing or goes into cardiac arrest. Since she can breathe on her own, but she can't eat or drink on her own, removing the feeding tubes is the only option for the doctors to take to comply with the wishes that the courts have ruled she would have made if she were competent enough to communicate them.
In this case removing feeding tubes falls into the same category (no artifical means of life support and no heroic measures of recovery) as a patient rejecting life-prolonging medication, turning off a ventalator machine, or refusing CPR if that patient stops breathing or goes into cardiac arrest. Since she can breathe on her own, but she can't eat or drink on her own, removing the feeding tubes is the only option for the doctors to take to comply with the wishes that the courts have ruled she would have made if she were competent enough to communicate them.
I never thought of it that way.
- Removing her nutrients will not cause her any pain. She has no cerebral cortex and therefore cannot feel hunger or thirst. It will be painless. And anyway, it's the only legal way to let her go.
My Grandmother was in a hospice for almost two months. For the last month or so she didn't eat at all, except when she had to. Like taking medicines, so they wouldn't make her sick. I saw my grandma go through this for almost two months. Part of me wishes that she wouldn't have been in the pain she was in, and would want her to be put out of her misery. But for those two months, my Grandma had the biggest impact on the people around her. Our family is Christian, and i believe that God had a purpose by leaving her there, exposing others around about God. I'm not saying this is the case with Terri Shiavo, but maybe this was why she was still here, maybe to make a huge story and change some lives. just a possibility, from my view.
Just becuase the religeos believe there is heaven dose not mean the want to go right now, ask any preist if they beleive in heven. They will all say they do. "wanna go right now?' they will say "No, god has a pourpose for our lives.
Wrong, well.. kinda. Are you speaking from experience? The Bible tells us that nothing should make us want to stay on this earth.
My thoughts are, the reason God wills for me to live this moment is because He has a purpose for me. If He wills for me to die, then bring it. If you don't want to die, then either
A. You really don't believe it.
B. You don't fully trust God.
C. You are too comfortable in this world (which is a bad thing)
I get the impression you (not really you, lukeiamyourdad, but people in this thread in general.. not all, but some) have some screwed up ideas about Christianity.
Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Wrong, well.. kinda. Are you speaking from experience? The Bible tells us that nothing should make us want to stay on this earth.
My thoughts are, the reason God wills for me to live this moment is because He has a purpose for me.
if she is hanging in between getting better and dying, how do we know what god's will is? is it in god's will that we remove the tube or keep her here?
If God does have a porpose for her, he would make her better. If he wants her to "Come Home", he would just take her already.
So your saying she can't serve a purpose being in a vegetative state? Look around you, if it wasn't for her we wouldn't be having this conversation right now! She is serving a huge purpose.
I think he's talking about her being able to do something by her own will. We're having a discussion about her she probably never wanted us to hae, never wanted to be such a publicised character.
Well, Sith, I thought about saying that, but then I thought that if the US changes, other parts of the world will follow too. It may not, but other countries will at least consider America's decision on this case.
Yeah right.
These other countries of yours, do they include, say, Norway? Norway "puts irrecoverable patients to sleep" on a daily basis. In many other countries, too, euthanasia has been legal for a long time.
If a patient will never again wake up, what's the point of wasting millions of bucks on him or her? What about all the other patients in permanent coma in the States? Should untold millions of dollars be spent keeping those, too, in a permanent state of coma forever?
I also think it's moronic of Bush to break off his vacation and try to impose a new law (no, he's not done taking away civil rights, liberties, or the power and independence of the various States yet:rolleyes:) to keep this from happening. Another slap in the face is him calling himself the "Guardian of Life" now.
Er... Right. The guy who's killed untold numbers in Iraq and executed more people in a given state than any guvernour (sp.?) before him is our guardian of life:rolleyes: .
Keeping Schiavo alive for 15 years has cost, what, $2 million maybe? Hospital equipment and service is expensive, so this is a realistic number.
If those $2 million were spent on vaccination on third world children, we would afford to vaccinate roughly 80 000 children against all common diseases. Diseases that claim the lives of roughly 5500 children every day.
How would you spend that money? To save the lives of thousands of children, or to artificially keeping alive a vegetable for 15 more years?
I do not wish to make this a question of money, but rather a question of priorities.
And as Dagobahn Eagle said, it is rather odd that the person who started two wars without reason, don't give a bird's ass about poorer countries and is a warm supporter of death penalty now calls himself "Guardian of Life".
Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
So your saying she can't serve a purpose being in a vegetative state? Look around you, if it wasn't for her we wouldn't be having this conversation right now! She is serving a huge purpose.
you know, you are right. she is serving a HUGE porpose. maybie the porpose for her is to debate rather to let her live or die. maybie god is testing us. to get us a perception of life.
Originally posted by Breton
Keeping Schiavo alive for 15 years has cost, what, $2 million maybe? Hospital equipment and service is expensive, so this is a realistic number.
If those $2 million were spent on vaccination on third world children, we would afford to vaccinate roughly 80 000 children against all common diseases. Diseases that claim the lives of roughly 5500 children every day.
How would you spend that money? To save the lives of thousands of children, or to artificially keeping alive a vegetable for 15 more years?
I do not wish to make this a question of money, but rather a question of priorities.
People don't think. People waste and want. That is the trouble. We could end world hunger if we wanted to. No.
Originally posted by Breton
And as Dagobahn Eagle said, it is rather odd that the person who started two wars without reason, don't give a bird's ass about poorer countries and is a warm supporter of death penalty now calls himself "Guardian of Life".
It is obvious. anyone who contridicts themselves Is full of horse crap.
Enough about Bush, there are plenty of other threads in this forum that you can bash him in.
Finally, Terri's parents are moving on and fighting with Michael Schiavo over what to do with her corpse.
It never ends.
call me sick, but is she dead yet?
I'm sick of the news. It's just sick that they are putting mass coverage on this whole thing while there are CONSCIOUS LIVING people dying of starvation in other countries.
It disgusts me.
I heard MR shiavo would get a million bucks in malpractice lawsuits.
call me sick, but is she dead yet?
I'm sick of the news. It's just sick that they are putting mass coverage on this whole thing while there are CONSCIOUS LIVING people dying of starvation in other countries.
It disgusts me.
Come, let me buy you a huge pizza and a ba-a-a-d drink.
So your saying she can't serve a purpose being in a vegetative state? Look around you, if it wasn't for her we wouldn't be having this conversation right now! She is serving a huge purpose.
Everything serves a purpose. There's a good side of everything. But that does not make it right. Want to serve a purpose?
If those $2 million were spent on vaccination on third world children, we would afford to vaccinate roughly 80 000 children against all common diseases. Diseases that claim the lives of roughly 5500 children every day.
That serves a higher purpose than keeping someone alive because you love her too much to let her go, in my opinion.
Originally posted by kipperthefrog
if she is hanging in between getting better and dying, how do we know what god's will is? is it in god's will that we remove the tube or keep her here?
Thas why you shouldn't try and second guess god's will. It isn't possible. Is it his will we intervene, we don't interevene, we intervene but then stop. Who can know. So it becomes an invalid argument.
As for the money, i heard he said he would give what was left to charity. Which he has no reason to do, but would be a very kind gesture.
Its perfectly understandable that parents get wrapped up in their kids welfare to such a degree that they stop thinking clearly... but that doesn't make them right.
At least the court showed some common sense...
Here's how we determine gods will. Take her off the machines, if he wants her to live, he'll perform a miracle, if not she was meant to die and go to her rightful place in heaven/hell. People need to stop being selfish, especially those parents.
Not to change the subject, but Won't stem cell researh solve problems like Shiavos?
if it would regenerate the brain after somthing like parkinsense desease, or somthing simuar, would it help her problem?
These other countries of yours, do they include, say, Norway? Norway "puts irrecoverable patients to sleep" on a daily basis. In many other countries, too, euthanasia has been legal for a long time.
I didn't know about that.
If those $2 million were spent on vaccination on third world children, we would afford to vaccinate roughly 80 000 children against all common diseases. Diseases that claim the lives of roughly 5500 children every day.
Your right in your numbers, but, the sad fact is the doctors Mr. Schiavo sued probably weren't going to spend that 2 million on vaccinations. :(
Everything serves a purpose. There's a good side of everything. But that does not make it right. Want to serve a purpose?
Exactly, all things work together for good. Thats a Biblical verse (paraphrased), but I cannot remember where it is located...
Thas why you shouldn't try and second guess god's will. It isn't possible. Is it his will we intervene, we don't interevene, we intervene but then stop. Who can know. So it becomes an invalid argument.
We have free will, we make our own choices.
Here's how we determine gods will. Take her off the machines, if he wants her to live, he'll perform a miracle, if not she was meant to die and go to her rightful place in heaven/hell. People need to stop being selfish, especially those parents.
Perhaps... but God knows the past, present, and future, so He knows the best outcome.
Its been 1 1/2 weeks now right? She has hung on a long time.
The Pope had a feeding tube put in, and he can't talk....
Lets starve the pope!
He wrote out a note that said IG-64 is full of crap, though. :)
Seriously, you don't see the cognative ability of the Pope as equal to that of Schiavo, do you?
any of you watch the south park episode tonight? XD
Originally posted by Rogue15
any of you watch the south park episode tonight? XD
Muwahaha "Taking that pipe out of her is playing God!" "Actually, putting that pipe in was playing God..."
Originally posted by InsaneSith
Here's how we determine gods will. Take her off the machines, if he wants her to live, he'll perform a miracle, if not she was meant to die and go to her rightful place in heaven/hell. People need to stop being selfish, especially those parents.
But then, is it god's will that we take her off the machines? Is it god's will that the court has ruled this way? Its impossible to tell.
Seriously, you don't see the cognative ability of the Pope as equal to that of Schiavo, do you?
I don't know about you, but I have for years.... :(
Your right in your numbers, but, the sad fact is the doctors Mr. Schiavo sued probably weren't going to spend that 2 million on vaccinations.
Probably not, but that is 2 million lessthey will have to spend on patients (so they will have to miss some operations, or raise fees), or that is the insurance premiums for doctors nationwide going up to cover it. The money doesn't just come from nowhere.
Schiavo, 41, died 13 days after doctors removed the feeding tube that had kept her alive. (Full story) (
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/31/obit.schiavo/).
May she rest in peace now.
'Bout bloody time. Now she can truly rest easy.
Her soul was practically gone anyway. =\
Well, IMHO, Michael Schiavo was committing adultery by being with another woman and having 2 kids outside his marriage, and he shouldn't have been given power over Terri's life. And the fact that he was married in common law to the other woman, committing bigotry, which is against the law.
If he had not been given power she might have been given tests, scans, and therapy and might have gotten better, despite the assumption that she was already dead, even though there was no medical proof of this. Terri was looking around, recognizing, and smiling at family, answering questions with grunts, and could've been saved. But it is too late now, and may she be in peace.
"Is the b**** dead yet?" - Michael Schiavo
(dunno if he really said it, but it was reported by a nurse)
Originally posted by IG-64
Well, IMHO, Michael Schiavo was committing adultery by being with another woman and having 2 kids outside his marriage, and he shouldn't have been given power over Terri's life. And the fact that he was married in common law to the other woman, committing bigotry, which is against the law.
Look at what his wife is, though. She's supposed to be dead, she's being prolonged just to please her parents, and she is draining his resources, which could be much better spent on his own children. Not to say though that Micheal isn't a scumbag, just that he does have legit reasons for wanting to end her mortal life.
If he had not been given power she might have been given tests, scans, and therapy and might have gotten better, despite the assumption that she was already dead, even though there was no medical proof of this. Terri was looking around, recognizing, and smiling at family, answering questions with grunts, and could've been saved. But it is too late now, and may she be in peace.
I don't know, it seemed like to me modern medical medicene(yay for alliterations) couldn't turn her back into a independent human.
IG, your post is a good example of biased, unreasoned and irrational thought.
Originally posted by IG-64
Well, IMHO, Michael Schiavo was committing adultery by being with another woman and having 2 kids outside his marriage,
Which is a place that the so-called religious right has targeted Schiavo in their campaign to attempt assasination of his character. The facts are, however, that Michael Schiavo did not commit adultery since his wife was essentially dead and her intention was to not be on extended life support in the event that her condition was such that it was.
Of course, the only way we know is because Michael stated that she told him this. Does that that mean that she did? Of course not. But when you engage in a contract of marriage, you give your spouse the right to make such decisions in the event that they aren't written on some sort of instrument that supercedes intimate conversations. The very fact that she trusted his judgement enough to enter into a lifelong contract of marriage, gives that ability for Michael to act as her proxy.
It would be unreasonable for us to expect Michael Schiavo to abandon his goals of establishing a family and raising children because he has a brain dead wife in the hospital being grotesquely kept alive through artificial means against their express will. This was done for nearly as long as you've been alive! 15 freakin' years! The doctors he had told him that her condition was not recoverable -was he to be denied the chance at living his life because his wife's life was gone? What spouse would truly wish that on their loved one?
Originally posted by IG-64
and he shouldn't have been given power over Terri's life.
Then she shouldn't have married him. I understand that if I'm ever in such a predictament and without a written instrument to guide family and physicians, my wife will have the ability to make those decisions. I'm counting on that and this is what happens when you make a committment like marriage.
The so-called religious right, by protesting Michael Schiavo and his wife's wishes have threatened the sanctity of family and the very family values they claim to uphold. Why? Becuase it furthers their agenda in the abortion issue by using the "right to life" bullcrap. It's hypocrisy at its fullest.
Originally posted by IG-64
And the fact that he was married in common law to the other woman, committing bigotry, which is against the law.
It isn't bigotry unless you legally formalize your marriage, which they did not do. But this is more evidence of your irrational and biased thought processes, interested only in propaganda and not facts.
Originally posted by IG-64
If he had not been given power she might have been given tests, scans, and therapy and might have gotten better, despite the assumption that she was already dead, even though there was no medical proof of this.
How do you know? Have you reviewed the medical files? Have you consulted with the physicians? In one of the court decisions that favored Michael Schiavo, the court instructed that each side (the husband and the parents) would gather the opinions of two physicians each of their own choosing and the court would obtain the opinion of a fifth physician unassociated with either side. The phsyicians of the parents said that it was possible that she might recover; the husband's physicians stated that it would be impossible and that her cerebral cortext was liquified (these don't grow back).
Obviously there's a bias, but which way? The fifth, unassociated physician decided the direction of the bias by agreeing with the husband's physicians.
Get your facts first and support what you say and you won't seem to be nonsensical.
Originally posted by IG-64
Terri was looking around, recognizing, and smiling at family, answering questions with grunts,
That hasn't been established. People in persistent vegetative states rarely recover if they haven't already in a period that is somewhere under a year; moreover, it is common for people in persistent vegetative states to react to various stimuli without actually performing cognitive acts or engaging in cognitive thoughts.
Originally posted by IG-64
"Is the b**** dead yet?" - Michael Schiavo
(dunno if he really said it, but it was reported by a nurse)
A very irresponsible statement unless it can be substantiated to a primary source. Particularly since you "dunno if he really said it," but, again, it speaks to your inability to engage in rational thought when it comes to such a significant issue.
The real tragedy of this case is not only the sheer time, effort and media attention spent on a very simple issue, but also the court system's inability to be swiftly decisive in this case.
The woman was brain-dead, and her physical shell was being kept alive against medical advice and her own wishes by a sadly, and fanatically, grieving family... with a grudge against her husband.
The law should have intervened to remove life support LONG ago. What if the woman WAS partially aware? Over fifteen years of mute motionlessness, she'd have gone HORRIBLY INSANE. It would have been TORTURE.
Fortunately she was well out of it. But the courts should shape up and allow those who wish to die... to die. Quickly.
That is a very excellent point, I cannot imagine how completely miserable I would be to live in a bed for 15 years, unable to talk or communicate with friends or family, not able to feed myself or control any bodily functions.
That would be worse than dying.
Fortunately she was well out of it.
Or so you think. No one can be 100% sure.
From what I have heard on the news, she didn't have a will in writing. Nothing else can be proven true.
Of course, the only way we know is because Michael stated that she told him this. Does that that mean that she did? Of course not. But when you engage in a contract of marriage, you give your spouse the right to make such decisions in the event that they aren't written on some sort of instrument that supercedes intimate conversations. The very fact that she trusted his judgement enough to enter into a lifelong contract of marriage, gives that ability for Michael to act as her proxy.
Right, but the fact your overlooking is that he broke that vow. What rights should he get?
Its like commiting a felony, you lose rights. He broke his vow, and so why should he be entitled to marriage rights with Terry?
In fact, I could go as far as to say that whole statement contradicts itself, because, since you claim she is dead, then she is not his wife. Its like a divorce- would you let your ex-wife decide your fate?
If you disagree with that, you must acknowledge that they were (because now she is dead) married and that he has committed adultery/bigotry.
Why? Becuase it furthers their agenda in the abortion issue by using the "right to life" bullcrap.
I see what you mean, but I think it was just parents wanting their daughter to live. They are deep into catholicism and asked their local priest for advise and support.
IG, your post is a good example of biased, unreasoned and irrational thought.
To a certain extent all posts are biased, its all how you look at it.
It would be unreasonable for us to expect Michael Schiavo to abandon his goals of establishing a family and raising children because he has a brain dead wife in the hospital being grotesquely kept alive through artificial means against their express will.
Artificial means? Ummm, it was a feeding tube. It just feeds her, just like a person feeds their young child, sort of. Its obvious she could stay alive without the machine... for a while.
I think its is unreasonable to opt out of your responsibility. This reminds me of something in the bible.
Seriously, this is a good read... 2nd Samuel Chapter 11: NIV (
http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=10&chapter=11&version=31)
While these two cases are fairly different, they are also simular. David screwed up, and had a responsibility. He should have told Uriah and admitted he was wrong. He should have owned up to his responsibility.
Michael had a responsibility. It was his wife. You see, now he has had her killed (it is murder, no matter how you look at it, whether she was almost dead or not). He didn't want to continue his responsibility to his wife. True, its not his fault, but the point is still there.
To continue the story (for those interested) Also a good read:
2nd Samuel Chapter 12 NIV (
http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=10&chapter=12&version=31)
God later went on to call David "A man after my own heart." Jesus Christ was a descendant of David (and through bathsheba too!) That there is proof of how God works everything for good! I just realised this, but through that affair, Jesus Christ was born... kinda (I say this because Joseph wasn't the biological father of Jesus) If it wasn't for that affair Joseph wouldn't have been born.
Those two chapters are really good though... really good :D
... Why are people using the term bigotry?
big·ot·ry Audio pronunciation of "bigotry" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bg-tr)
n.
The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance.
Perhaps you mean bigamy?
Anyway, had he been allowed to take his wife off earlier like she should have, he wouldn't have to have "broken his vows".
Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Artificial means? Ummm, it was a feeding tube. It just feeds her, just like a person feeds their young child, sort of. Its obvious she could stay alive without the machine... for a while.
That would be artificial means my friend. She would have died otherwise.
Lol @ bigotry.
That would be artificial means my friend. She would have died otherwise.
I see.
Anyway, had he been allowed to take his wife off earlier like she should have, he wouldn't have to have "broken his vows".
He didn't have to remarry. No one forced him.
Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
He didn't have to remarry. No one forced him. And he didn't have to put up with the BS of the parents, but he did. Seriously though, you try waiting 15 years staying loyal to somone no more alive than a cucumber.
Eitherway, the husband and parents should be bludgeoned to death with a shoe. They're all idiots.