Nightfly said:
Let the woman's suffering end, I thought she was dead and was just a body on machines for 15 years?
Last edited:
The Terri Schiavo situation.
- Thread starter member5726
- Start date
Let the woman's suffering end, I thought she was dead and was just a body on machines for 15 years?
And you're the one politicizing this. I never brought up anything about republicans or conservatives or anybody. I just stuck with a belief that we should side with life when there is no living will and her supposed will to die is solely based on the word of the husband who has children with another woman. By the way, to cheer you up, here is a picture of a 10-year-old boy who was ARRESTED for trying to give her water:
I would appreciate it if you would stop mentioning the political parties, and just talk about why YOU think she should be killed
I would appreciate it if you would stop mentioning the political parties, and just talk about why YOU think she should be killed
member11579
Banned
I can sympathise with the parents in how hard it is for them. When there is nothing else to hold on to, people cling to hope. It is a hard thing to let hope die. This woman clearly has no quality of life, and I think her euthanasia would be the right thing, as in time all concerned would finally be able to reach some closure on a traumatic period of their lives.
I agree with BigDan on the way she dies. The starvation thing has it's purpose. It has something to do with "passive euthanasia", in other words, no one is killing her; they're letting her die. But, I do think it's a cruel way to let someone go.
Her parents must be going through hell this week. They though they heard her say she wants to live. They fought and lost their appeal. They are watching their daughter wither away and can do nothing to help her. That is the part that bothers me. They have my sympathy.
Ilikethesun: I respect your optimism and would like to add that keeping her alive doesn't hurt anyone. But intentionally allowing her to die does hurt people: it hurts her family. My grandma took a couple of strokes a while back and eventually became a vegetable. On some good days, she would recognise my mom, or my grandfather. Most days she didn't know what was going on. Yet, my grandfather would visit her daily and feed her, talk to her, and just spend time with her. He wasn't the same after she passed away.
Both results - whether she lives or dies - will have their supporters and er, against-ers. I side with what is best, not only for the patient, but for the family as well, whether it be life or death. I am pro-both. I am for whichever option causes the least amount of people the least amount of pain. I see no point in polarising myself on this issue. Every case is different.
Her parents must be going through hell this week. They though they heard her say she wants to live. They fought and lost their appeal. They are watching their daughter wither away and can do nothing to help her. That is the part that bothers me. They have my sympathy.
Ilikethesun: I respect your optimism and would like to add that keeping her alive doesn't hurt anyone. But intentionally allowing her to die does hurt people: it hurts her family. My grandma took a couple of strokes a while back and eventually became a vegetable. On some good days, she would recognise my mom, or my grandfather. Most days she didn't know what was going on. Yet, my grandfather would visit her daily and feed her, talk to her, and just spend time with her. He wasn't the same after she passed away.
Both results - whether she lives or dies - will have their supporters and er, against-ers. I side with what is best, not only for the patient, but for the family as well, whether it be life or death. I am pro-both. I am for whichever option causes the least amount of people the least amount of pain. I see no point in polarising myself on this issue. Every case is different.
member2686
Banned
The little "fundie" boy SHOULD have been arrested. Fundamentalist "Christians" who break the law are no different than anyone else who breaks the law. Kids, adults, whoever. You break the law, you go to jail. The sad thing is that that kid has no clue as to what he's doing. He's a kid who has been spoon-fed some bullshit right-to-life CRAP by his parents and his church, no doubt (check out his zealot's t-shirt). Pathetic. The hilariously sad thing is that these dumbass fundie groups keep trying to bring in water to Terri Schiavo, but they don't realize that if they actually gave her a glass of water, as they have been trying to do, it would KILL her. She cannot drink. It would have to be an intraveinous hydration.
It's all politics. It's all a shell game, and those who claim to be "on the side of life" are the FIRST to sentence a felon to death and also to force a woman to have a child once pregnant. Fucking hypocrites.
Sorry, ilikethesun2009, but there's just no way out of the politics of this one, since the fundamentalists have played their card and it's out there on the table. They've blown their load and it's gone awry -- bad politicking.
Cheers. :hatsoff:
It's all politics. It's all a shell game, and those who claim to be "on the side of life" are the FIRST to sentence a felon to death and also to force a woman to have a child once pregnant. Fucking hypocrites.
Sorry, ilikethesun2009, but there's just no way out of the politics of this one, since the fundamentalists have played their card and it's out there on the table. They've blown their load and it's gone awry -- bad politicking.
Cheers. :hatsoff:
ilikethesun2009 said:
Thanks superfly, but there is one particular part of your post I want to bring into question. Many talk about this Passive Euthenasia and how they're letting Terri die and not actually actively killing her. Okay, here is the problem with that and I'll use an analogy to illustrate it. Take for instance a new born baby. A new born baby CERTAINLY cannot feed itself, but that doesn't mean parents that neglect it will not be held responsible. Under this Passive Euthanasia viewpoint, it would be alright for anyone to not feed their baby and they would not be considered murderers.
I don't care what anyone says about her wishes; they weren't written down and in the case of terminating a person's life, hearsey should not be the final verdict. Always side with life when it is unclear.
I don't care what anyone says about her wishes; they weren't written down and in the case of terminating a person's life, hearsey should not be the final verdict. Always side with life when it is unclear.
Nightfly said:
This is unbelieveable. You're relating the death penalty of felons to Terri Shaivo. FELONS ARE NOT THE BENEFICIARIES OF INNOCENCE and should be punished for their actions in the taking of another person's life. This is not meant to bring up the capital punishment debate, we can debate whether that's right or wrong on another thread, BUT DO NOT compare Terri Shaivo to a murderer.
You also attack this so called Christian Zelot of a kid. I don't know if you're right or not about her not being able to drink, but I'm glad to see a 10-Year-Old concerned about the life of another human. You attack his religion which I think is a very VERY harsh thing to do and very uncalled for. All the name calling and bomb throwing you've done actually shows who is more mature between you and the Zealot. (Are we even allowd to outright attack religious groups on this Board? [I'm just curious cause I don't actually know])
And how exactly is it hypocritical for Pro-Lifers on abortion to take the life stance in this case? To me, whether you agree with it or not, that is right on consistant.
When we're not 100% clear on her wishes, side with life
Last edited:
E
eschnabel
Guest
What gets me is that if a dog had this condition we would put it down for humanitarian reasons, however when conditions like this effect people we spend every available resource to keep them alive.
This lady has no higher brain activity. Her body and eye movements are completely involuntary. She will never "get better" and there is a good chance that she had no desire to live life as a vegetable. The only reason she's alive is because of the selfish desires of the ones that love her. I completely understand this, but have to ask who exactly is this helping? I've worked in emergency medicine and intensive care ward now for 7 years and I can tell you from experience that the only one truely being hurt by all of this is Terri Schiavo. Let her die in peace. :2 cents:
This lady has no higher brain activity. Her body and eye movements are completely involuntary. She will never "get better" and there is a good chance that she had no desire to live life as a vegetable. The only reason she's alive is because of the selfish desires of the ones that love her. I completely understand this, but have to ask who exactly is this helping? I've worked in emergency medicine and intensive care ward now for 7 years and I can tell you from experience that the only one truely being hurt by all of this is Terri Schiavo. Let her die in peace. :2 cents:
superfly2 said:Euthanasia is meant to end suffering due to an incurable terminal illness or something similar. Not feeding a child is neglect. These are two totally different issues.
Okay first, how can she be suffering if she is brain dead? Lets choose one or the other. She is either alive and aware (supposedly suffering) or she is a vegetable and brain dead (not suffering).
The point of my analogy was to demonstrate that no matter how you cook it up to be ("Passive Euthanasia"), it is still killing someone, when you have the opportunity to preserve the life (again is she alive or not, we must come to an agreement here, is she brain dead or is she supposedly suffering? THAT's Inconsistant). Just because they're passivly not feeding her does not make it somehow her fault that she's dying. The people responsible for the removal of the life supporting devices are.
In general, I cannot understand the outpouring desire for death in this case, especially when it is unclear that these are truly her wishes
eschnabel said:
First off, Terri Shaivo is not and has never been an animal. When someone is born a human, they have rights under the constitution and no matter what happens to them in the course of their life, they should still have those rights. I'm sorry to all the animal people out there, but Animals are not protected under the constitution in any amount of degree as people are. Animals are actually considered personal property. But you do bring up an interesting point: the same people that always complain about the migration patterns of the Alaskan Caribou are the same people that desire, above all else, that Terri Shaivo die.
Also, my main point all along, this idea that these are her wishes is SOLELY based on the word of the supposed husband, who now has kids with another woman.
"Selfish desires of the ones that love her." I don't know what to say to that. Put yourself in the parent's shoes. There is no documentation that these were her wishes however there is nothing they can do to stop her death.
How can a lifeless body be hurt by anything?
Last edited:
Keep in mind that without these life-support systems, Terri Schiavo would probably be dead a long time ago. We are interfering with natural processes here. Without peoples support, she would have died of natural causes (a stroke I think). So now that these people are withdrawing their support after fifteen years, why are they considered murderers.ilikethesun2009 said:
You have made some good points BTW. :hatsoff:
superfly2 said:Keep in mind that without these life-support systems, Terri Schiavo would probably be dead a long time ago. We are interfering with natural processes here. Without peoples support, she would have died of natural causes (a stroke I think). So now that these people are withdrawing their support after fifteen years, why are they considered murderers.
You have made some good points BTW. :hatsoff:
We've gone full circle here. Like I said, it would be natural for a baby to die should it not get fed. So this whole Passive Euthanasia and Natural Process argument is not fair to Terri. And the withdrawing of support after 15 years argument is not completely valid either. The parents have agreed to assume ALL cost of living expenses at no cost to the Shaivo family or ANYBODY else. There will be no burden on anybody. I say stay on the side of hope and life and allow the parents who brought her into the world, to take care of her, as are their wishes.
ilikethesun2009 said:
I agree with you ILTS2009. If we are not positive of her wishes; I think it is better to err on the side of life.
Suppose. Just suppose; that a remedy for her condition is found 30 seconds after she starves to death?
And, on top of that, starving someone to death? Not the most pleasant way to go I imagine. Right now, as we speak, she is (I assume) starving. Some facit of her body is calling out for food and people around her are letting her die. We better hope she is completely out of it. Imagine if she understands and feels pain?
Keep it up ILTS 2009.
Thanks mcrocket!
member2686
Banned
Rant ON:
We treat goldfish better than we're treating Terri Schiavo, and the wacko right-wingers have had a political powder keg blow up in their fundamentalist "Christian" faces with this issue (they brought it upon themselves), and they just keep repeating this bullshit "err on the side of life" line. It's been 15 years, you "compassionate conservative" bastards, that this woman has been a drooling, braindead vegetable of a human being lying in a bed with the brain function of a house plant. If you'd cared at all about this phototropic-responding vegetable of a human being, you'd have rallied long before. Don't take up the cause now. Hypocrites... Let her die in peace, for the GOOD LORD'S SAKE.
I deplore religious wackos OF ANY SORT and of ANY religion, particularly when they rally around politics. Fucking zealot prick opportunists.
Fucking pathetic. I am glad Bush cannot run/fix another election. The world is running fucking amok and we have a fuckwit president at the helm. Our V.P. (Cheney) is at death's door every 90 days, and no one ever even sees him, and at this time of terror and all sorts of other crises, we need someone with credibility -- not religious hypocrisy.
I can't wait -- Hillary 2008! :nanner:
Rant OFF.
We treat goldfish better than we're treating Terri Schiavo, and the wacko right-wingers have had a political powder keg blow up in their fundamentalist "Christian" faces with this issue (they brought it upon themselves), and they just keep repeating this bullshit "err on the side of life" line. It's been 15 years, you "compassionate conservative" bastards, that this woman has been a drooling, braindead vegetable of a human being lying in a bed with the brain function of a house plant. If you'd cared at all about this phototropic-responding vegetable of a human being, you'd have rallied long before. Don't take up the cause now. Hypocrites... Let her die in peace, for the GOOD LORD'S SAKE.
I deplore religious wackos OF ANY SORT and of ANY religion, particularly when they rally around politics. Fucking zealot prick opportunists.
Fucking pathetic. I am glad Bush cannot run/fix another election. The world is running fucking amok and we have a fuckwit president at the helm. Our V.P. (Cheney) is at death's door every 90 days, and no one ever even sees him, and at this time of terror and all sorts of other crises, we need someone with credibility -- not religious hypocrisy.
I can't wait -- Hillary 2008! :nanner:
Rant OFF.
Last edited:
With all due respect to all those people that are strong on religion.
I have said it before and I will say it again...religion is a complete and total waste of time. Far more people have been killed in the name of religion then (imo) have ever been saved by it.
Look at every major problem in the world. And just about every one has one religion fighting another at it's core. Absolutely ridiculous.
Lister on Red Dwarf said it best; 'Religion is just an excuse for them (people) to be really crappy to each other.' (or words to that effect)
I know that is not the topic...but it was kind or raised; and I could not resist.
I have said it before and I will say it again...religion is a complete and total waste of time. Far more people have been killed in the name of religion then (imo) have ever been saved by it.
Look at every major problem in the world. And just about every one has one religion fighting another at it's core. Absolutely ridiculous.
Lister on Red Dwarf said it best; 'Religion is just an excuse for them (people) to be really crappy to each other.' (or words to that effect)
I know that is not the topic...but it was kind or raised; and I could not resist.
Nightfly said:
Is it because you have no real points to make that you have to resort to the name calling and bomb throwing? Try to have a senseable mature debate sometime. You still have not answered any of the above points I made. You basically just retyped an old post. Therefore I have nothing new to say, but my main point that you have yet to address is that it is unclear what her wishes truly were, and in that case, we should side on life. I think you're the one making a political issue out of this; seeing this as an opportunity to oppose the Pro-Life people and run your Hillary 2008 campaign. Ohh, and explain what part of being consistent on a Pro-Life stance is hypocritical? You throw the word around like [insert good metaphor here] but have no real meaning behind it. The issue here is not WHEN these zealots took action, it's the action their taking. Stick to the ISSUE here and not your campaign talking points!
Last edited:
mcrocket said:
Alot of people also died for the United States of America, that doesn't make the United States of America inherintly bad. There is no way to measure how many people have been saved by religion, so you can't say far less to any degree of certainty. You may think religion is a complete and total waste of time. That's cool. But that doesn't make religious people bad or zealots.
