Originally posted by InsaneSith
That would be artificial means my friend. She would have died otherwise.
Indeed, it's not like they were holding food up to her mouth and she was eating it, they had to directly have the food pumped into her body, because she was unable to move anything.
Right, but the fact your overlooking is that he broke that vow. What rights should he get?
So what you're insinuating is that if YOU were completely brain-dead and confined to a hospital bed, unable to perform even the most basic of human bodily functions, you would wish your wife to stay loyal at your side while your parents forced the doctors to keep your shell of a body alive? You wouldn't want her to move on with her life and be happy?
It seems that the only reasons to keep her alive were selfish ones.
Originally posted by ET Warrior
So what you're insinuating is that if YOU were completely brain-dead and confined to a hospital bed, unable to perform even the most basic of human bodily functions, you would wish your wife to stay loyal at your side while your parents forced the doctors to keep your shell of a body alive? You wouldn't want her to move on with her life and be happy?
It seems that the only reasons to keep her alive were selfish ones.
I view it as a sin pal. If I were alive and my wife cheated me, yeah its a sin. Did I say leave me there to rot? No.
Im saying, he broke his marriage vows, he has no rights as to whether she lives or dies (too late now)
Besides, what were those vows?
Do you promise to love and cherish her, in sickness and in health, for richer for poorer, for better for worse, and forsaking all others, keep yourself only unto her, for so long as you both shall live?
Terry wasn't dead.
Like I said, he broke his wedding vows knowing fully that she was still alive. He forfeited any rights to the decision of her life.
After thinking about it more, I think those Bible chapters express God's point of view on this situation. Simple as that. I could be wrong. Anyone agree? Disagree... have something to say?
She was being kept artificially alive, by all real standards she was dead.
And it seems to me god wanted her to die, otherwise he would have miraculously kept her alive without use of machines.
Originally posted by SkinWalker
Schiavo, 41, died 13 days after doctors removed the feeding tube that had kept her alive.
As far as I'm concerned, Terri Schiavo died 15 years ago.
And the media coverage? It's sickening. But I guess there is a quote to go with it:
"One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic." ~ Stalin
Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Like I said, he broke his wedding vows knowing fully that she was still alive. He forfeited any rights to the decision of her life.
He didn't remarry as he was still married to Terri. Adultery isn't illegal unless you are in the military. He broke no laws. The very fact that he refused to abandon Terri demonstrates that he loves her. I would have divorced her and left her lifeless body for her parents to do as they wished were me.
Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
I view it as a sin pal. If I were alive and my wife cheated me, yeah its a sin. Did I say leave me there to rot? No.
Well, when I marry that is one thing my wife will know. If anything like that EVER happens to me, where I can be classified as a vegetable, she is to divorce me and find somebody else. (Hopefully she can get them to pull the plug on me first, that way no need for a divorce)
Has anyone watched the coverage soon after she passed? People were on their knees crying! I mean how many of those people there actually knew who terri Schiavo was? How much of it was just for show? I don't know but that really makes me angry when people do stuff like that.
Over 1500 U.S. Service men and women have perished in Iraq. I wonder how many of these "caring citizens" cried for even one of them?
Tom DeLay made a comment that the state judicial figures that "thumbed their noses at Congress" would get what's coming to them by someone... just the kind of comment that some extremist nut needs to hear to set him off in a killing spree against judges... something we've seen several times in recent times already.
What an idiot DeLay is.
Over 1500 U.S. Service men and women have perished in Iraq. I wonder how many of these "caring citizens" cried for even one of them?
Exactly. I'd like to see them cry over that school shooting where the neo-nazi shot six people. Amazing how emotional people can get if there's some politics or money involved:mad: .
"One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic." ~ Stalin
Or "one death is a tragedy, 1,500 are a statistic":rolleyes: .
Contrary to the claims of many sources, I think Stalin's quote was "one death is a tragedy. A thousand death are a catastrophe. A million deaths is just statistics".
Stalin wasn't the nicest guy on Earth, but he was a good speaker, I suppose.
Originally posted by ET Warrior
Well, when I marry that is one thing my wife will know. If anything like that EVER happens to me, where I can be classified as a vegetable, she is to divorce me and find somebody else. (Hopefully she can get them to pull the plug on me first, that way no need for a divorce)
Me too.
---------
He definately DID NOT commit bigotry, in either a legal or moral sense.
You could possibly argue that he committed adultery, by the strictest sense of the word, but many people wouldn't even hold that to be the case. His wife was to all intents and purposes dead, and surely she would have wished him to move on and have a happy life? I know that I would want my partner to move on if I ended up in terri's position.
He could have just moved on, got a divorce, and washed his hands of the whole problem (and saved himself loads of heartache, stress, legal battles and demonisation by extremists) but instead he chose to stick by what his wife wanted and fight for her to get it.
I'm sure he's made some bad decisions along the way, maybe said some stupid things and done some selfish things... we all do, especially when under emotional stress. However to have people with an extreme agenda go over every bit of your life and try and pick certain bits out to paint you as an evil person isn't something I would wish on anyone.
Of course, no one can truely know anyones true motivations except themselves, but surely it is up to god (if there is a god) to sort them out in the end? In which case i suspect the husband and parents are lessliekly to be going to hell than the priests, activists, politicians and reporters who have turned the whole thing into a circus for their own ends
Good ol' Florida....
I like how the parents wanted to keep her alive in her horrible situation instead of letting her "move on to a better place." They are Christians aren't they? Oh well, it doesn't matter anymore.
It took ~7 years to make this decision? Jesus. I think people need to start putting this stuff in a living will when they turn 18 or something. The government should not have had to get involved :/
*shakes head*
Somewhere I read that Terri's parents had originally encouraged Michael to date other people a couple of years after her attack.
Now that has become the central argument in the case that he shouldn't have had any say in what happened to her.
It makes me wonder if they had planned it that way to try to get him out of the picture. But then maybe not.
If I find that article again I'll post the link.
I also read that there were numerous arguments over money between Terri's father and Michael.
But that's the big problem... all these biased, half-formed, hearsay reports that have been the backbone of the press coverage in this case is all that any of have to go on and base our opinions on. Almost nobody that has been interviewed in the case can truly be said to be objective, so all we are left with is people shouting thier opinions and deeply held beliefs at us, being reported as fact on the news.
I hate the idea that her parents have become almost sainted, while her husband has become totally villefied. They are all only people, with thier own flaws and failings common to us all, and I'm sure they both felt like they were following her wishes and doing what was best for her. I doubt that there were these sinister overriding agendas being played out as we have all been pushed to believe. It's just that thier beliefs on the matter were in conflict, and that's where the courts had to step in. It's really all there is to this.
The press and the politicians should never have gotten involved in such a personal, private family matter... but they did, and here we are.
John Chapter 7, verse 24
Stop judging by the way things look, but judge by what is really right."
NCV
Of course, no one can truely know anyones true motivations except themselves, but surely it is up to god (if there is a god) to sort them out in the end? In which case i suspect the husband and parents are lessliekly to be going to hell than the priests, activists, politicians and reporters who have turned the whole thing into a circus for their own ends
Read my Bible quotes... it all catches up with everyone in the end. :-\
BTW, good works and bad deeds don't decide your fate.
Check it out:
John 3 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
John 3
Jesus Teaches Nicodemus
1Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him.”
3In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.”
4“How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!”
5Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”
9“How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.
10“You are Israel's teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven–the Son of Man. 14Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.
16“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.”
NIV
While I was there, I found something... interesting:
http://bible.com/answers/aeuthanasia.html)
It explains God's viewpoint on euthanasia, suicide, murder.. etc. Of course, you'll likley scrub it off as a biased, unreasonable, and irrational source. :rolleyes:
Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.
John 3 Bible Link (
http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=3&version=31)
Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
It explains God's viewpoint on euthanasia, suicide, murder.. etc. Of course, you'll likley scrub it off as a biased, unreasonable, and irrational source. :rolleyes:
Looks like he did!:p
You can say ANYTHING is baised propaganda. Guys here says that about anything that don't agree with them.
"God" is written with a capital "G". Other than that, the card rules:D.
The Bible may be a good read, but it's just one more set of opinions. I'm a religious person, but I know for a fact that the Bible was written by a group of Men.
The Pope had a feeding tube put in, and he can't talk....
Let's starve the pope!
But he isn't a vegetable without a working brain who'll never wake up. He still sees, feels, hears, smells, and understands. Bad analogy.
Bigamy*
Whoops :p
This is exactly why I hate the senate. Skinwalker's post in response to mine was a bunch of creatively-worded flames. He's basically doing his best to shove my own words in my face and call me an idiot. Probably just so he can "soften me up" and win this pointless debate.
Btw, this is the last time i'm coming to this crappy forum. :xp:
Originally posted by IG-64
Bigamy*
Whoops :p
This is exactly why I hate the senate. Skinwalker's post in response to mine was a bunch of creatively-worded flames. He's basically doing his best to shove my own words in my face and call me an idiot. Probably just so he can "soften me up" and win this pointless debate.
Btw, this is the last time i'm coming to this crappy forum. :xp:
Oh comon, you just don't like the Senate 'cause you suck at the Internets.
:p
Originally posted by IG-64
This is exactly why I hate the senate. Skinwalker's post in response to mine was a bunch of creatively-worded flames.
I apologize if you were offended and, admittedly, I was a bit harsh, but I probably wouldn't have been if not for the quote you attributed to Michael Schiavo. I just found it irresponsible to post such an anecdote that is already harsh just to get your point across.
Originally posted by IG-64
Btw, this is the last time i'm coming to this crappy forum. :xp:
Too bad.
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
"God" is written with a capital "G". Other than that, the card rules:D.
Maybe to you, but I don't believe to address "him" as a proper noun, therefore I do not capitalize.
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
The Bible may be a good read, but it's just one more set of opinions. I'm a religious person, but I know for a fact that the Bible was written by a group of Men.
Indeed, and it is not a valid arguement because the existence of god and that the book as his word can neither be proven or disproven.
Now the question is, what kind of presedence (spelling?:o) has this set?
The next time this is going to be decided for someone, will the debate be more or less tame? Will the "Guardians of Life"(:rolleyes: ) be more resigned or even more fanatical?
Terri's death has definetly set off some emotional stir, but it's also created a presedence. So I think that legally, it'll be easier to put dead people to sleep now. Maybe there'll even be moves made towards doing it in a more primitive and frowned-upon way than pulling their IV tubes?
The protesters have no doubt not donned their tunnel vision patches for the last time, though...
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.Nothing else... like the existence of God, for instance.
Schiavo's physical shell was allowed to expire because the courts (fifteen years too late) deemed the case for withdrawal of therapy TO BE PROVEN.
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Now the question is, what kind of presedence (spelling?:o) has this set?
Of course, this can easily be solved by people writing a quick living will, or something real short in the event of a tragedy and what to do in "x" situation. Then no one can argue against it saying "That's not what 'n' person wanted!" ect.
Don't be too sure. Wills can work both ways. It might make it easier to put someone to sleep, but what about the people who write a will stating that they want to be kept artificially alive, Terri Schiavo-style, indefinetly? Does the hospital have to waste millions of dollars on those?
And even if the will from person x says that he/she wants to die in the event of braindeath, I suspect people will still try to make the will void or to override it in some other way. "Ah, she was probably just depressed when she wrote it, surely that can't have been what she wanted. I knew her, she wouldn't want that! Overrule that will!"
See my point?
Originally posted by InsaneSith
Bah.
Hold on, I can do better. ;)
There we go:
link pulled --Jae
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Don't be too sure. Wills can work both ways. It might make it easier to put someone to sleep, but what about the people who write a will stating that they want to be kept artificially alive, Terri Schiavo-style, indefinetly? Does the hospital have to waste millions of dollars on those?
As long as the patient pays for it all, who cares. But if they're wasting other peoples money, screw that.
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
And even if the will from person x says that he/she wants to die in the event of braindeath, I suspect people will still try to make the will void or to override it in some other way. "Ah, she was probably just depressed when she wrote it, surely that can't have been what she wanted. I knew her, she wouldn't want that! Overrule that will!"
See my point? But it's in writing, they can't overrule it. Just like a will of the estate, someone who got passed up for the estate can't just say "oh they were angry at me when they wrote that because I urinated on the cake" or whatever. So no.
But it's in writing, they can't overrule it. Just like a will of the estate, someone who got passed up for the estate can't just say "oh they were angry at me when they wrote that because I urinated on the cake" or whatever. So no.
Ah, OK. I like your idea of using the patient's money, too.
But "Magic: The Gathering" is "M:TG", not "MT:G":D. Neat card, though:D.
Living wills can be contested. While it's unlikely that the ruling would ever go against the patient's wishes, the case could get tied up in the court system for years, leaving the patient in limbo the whole time, just like in this case.
Originally posted by edlib
Living wills can be contested. While it's unlikely that the ruling would ever go against the patient's wishes, the case could get tied up in the court system for years, leaving the patient in limbo the whole time, just like in this case. It can be contested, just like a will of the estate, but it will never be overturned, just like a will of the estate. At least there's no record of any will ever being overturned.
True, that. But it doesn't mean that people won't still try. Now more than ever, I think.
I also forsee the very real possibility of legislation being introduced in the next couple of years that will try to override patient's wishes in cases like this.
Expect to see, in the very near future, proposed bills that make removal of feeding tubes illegal no matter what a living will might say.
Sadly, I can see that happening.
Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
It explains God's viewpoint on euthanasia, suicide, murder.. etc. Of course, you'll likley scrub it off as a biased, unreasonable, and irrational source. :rolleyes:
Kind of. Surely it is verry arrogant to try and "explain god's viewpoint"!?!?
If there is a god then i'm pretty sure we don't understand his viewpoint. And when it is an interpretation of modern issues by modern men based on a heavily edited, translated ancient version of a biography of gods messenger then i think it is even less likely to be any closer to knowing god's mind.
18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.”
As usual with the bible that is readable a number of ways. First it says only those who believe in jesus get to go to heaven (even if they are good and the believers are evil).
Then at 20 it says that whoever people who do evil don't come into the light. And at 21 says whoever "comes into the light" is acting through gods will. SO if soeone does something good they are doing it through god? but they still don't get to heaven? :confused:
---------
I don't think precedent should matter in these sorts of cases, as each one is so unique. If the family and doctors can't sort it out then the courst is the right place to settle it. However there should be a way that the courts can sort it out in less than 15 YEARS!
With the comments of that senator guy about judges "flouting the will of congress" or something it did sound like a threat to change the law yet further.
Though it sounds to me from opinion polls that the courts were just doing their jobs and it was congress who were flouting the will of the people.
I think it's time we start electing politicians that put their right hands on bibles to uphold the Constitution and their right hands on the Constitution to uphold the bible.
Actually, that's obvious hyperbole, but the number of politicians that have their lips firmly planted on the butts religious conservatives for votes is appalling.
To quote the New York Times, “the idea of Congress convening a weekend session to push through a potentially precedent-setting law for one single individual, with little regard to the long-term consequences, is profoundly troubling. Political opportunism? No question about it.”
Tom DeLay had this to say, “One thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what is going on in America..." and he's right. It's getting to be very obvious "what is going on in America." But I'm sure he and I aren't thinking the same things.
DeLay also said, “This is exactly the issue that is going on in America, of attacks against the conservative movement, against me and against many others.”
Damned skippy. DeLay and his ilk require attack, or they will begin the collapse of our great society. DeLay is the idiot admonished three times by the House Ethics Committee recently -so we really need to believe what he says about "values."
He's also the dumba** that said to the media a few days ago, "[t]he time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior." This was in regard to the decisions of the state judiciary of Florida who refused to give up their states' rights in favor of federal manipulation of votes and politics. And if the comment wasn't a "call to arms" for every fundamentalist nutter (i.e. Timothy McVeigh deceased, Paul Hill jailed, Donald Spitz at-large, etc.) to pick up a gun or bomb and attack judges they disagree with, then it'll certainly be mistaken for one.
DeLay is a frickin' sh*tbird.
But his boss is the worst. Bush has the gall to make a comment that "we must always err in the direction of life"? This from the man who, when governor of my fair state, executed more criminals than Saudi Arabia or any third-world dictated country? Criminals that were retarded and had lawyers that slept during their trials? Whether or not you agree with the death penalty or not (I do), you have to agree that it isn't "erring in the direction of life" to execute a convicted criminal that is mentally ill or had grossely incompetent counsel.
It's time to get the religion out of politics! For the sake of both religious and secular society. Secular, by the way, doesn't imply "atheist," it means that the sacred is kept out of the hands of government.
Keeping the sacred away from the government is of the greatest benefit to the religious portion of our society, yet they continue to not get it. This includes the whole 10-commandments monument at public buildings debate. The Christians (as well as other relgious people) should be the first to stand up and say that it is inappropriate for government to appropriate their symbols for their use. It's profane and blasphemous. Blasphemy is an act that deprives something sacred or holy of its sacred or holy character. Putting a 10 commandments idol in a secular building like a courthouse does just that by implying that the government (the secular) has control over the sacred.
Use your heads people.
Originally posted by SkinWalker
To quote the New York Times, “the idea of Congress convening a weekend session to push through a potentially precedent-setting law for one single individual, with little regard to the long-term consequences, is profoundly troubling. Political opportunism? No question about it.”
Not only that, its dangerous. We've had examples in the UK (though not as blatant as this) of laws being rushed through based on public reaction to individual events. In every case the laws have turned out to have unforseen effects, be illegal, or have to be repealed/fine tuned to make them workable.
Its like burning all your magazines in a fit of anger because you happend to trip on one. You soon realise it was a bad idea, and that making a blanket judgement based on an idividual event is a bad idea. You have to count to ten and think through the consequences.
Originally posted by SkinWalker
DeLay also said, “This is exactly the issue that is going on in America, of attacks against the conservative movement, against me and against many others.”
Any idea whether he was talking about the New York Post article, the court ignoring congress, the schiavo decision or what?
As far as i can tell there aren't a lot of attacks against the conservative movement going on. :mad:
DeLay also said, “This is exactly the issue that is going on in America, of attacks against the conservative movement, against me and against many others.”
Yeah, isn't it odd how those Peaceful Christian Republicans™ come under attack for no reason at all?
Maybe if they were campaigning against abortion, condemning abortionists and gays and Non-Christians to Hell, obstructing school education of science (namely evolution), and conducting other dubious business there'd be a reason for them to come under 88mm flak fire from the left, but since they're just sitting there twiddling thumbs...:confused:
I think they're actually getting shot with an 105mm since all of their arguments on the mentionned subjects fall down like infantry making a head-to-head attack against a huge howitzer barrage.
Guys! lookie what I found.
HERE are some examples of "persistint vegitive states"
-clicky- (
http://topplebush.com/photos428.shtml)