PDA

View Full Version : Act NOW to Save Terri Schiavo!



Pages : [1] 2

Anne
March 4th, 2005, 02:17 PM
Press Release

For immediate release:
Thursday, March 3, 2005

CONGRESS CAN ACT TO HELP SAVE TERRI SCHINDLER-SCHIAVO
CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVE NOW
Read the proposed Bill here TerrisFight (http://www.terrisfight.org)

Washington, D.C. -- The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) is calling on Congress to enact a bill to be introduced by Representative Dave Weldon, M.D. (R-Fl-15) that would give the Schindler family access to a federal court to argue for the life of their daughter, Terri Schindler-Schiavo.

“Congress can act to ensure a federal court hearing on whether or not Terri will die of starvation and dehydration,” said Lori Kehoe, Congressional Liaison for NRLC’s Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics. “A proceeding known as the ‘writ of habeas corpus,’ which is protected by the U.S. Constitution, has been used for centuries to give a hearing to those whose liberty has been constrained by state courts in violation of the Constitution or federal laws. We call on all citizens to immediately contact their U.S. Senators and Representatives and urge them to support Representative Weldon’s bill to amend the Habeas Corpus Act to allow its use when a state court orders denial of food or fluids in cases like Terri’s.”

Representative Weldon has announced that he will introduce the Incapacitated Person’s Legal Protection Act on Tuesday, March 8, 2005.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON THE FEDERAL “TERRI’S LAW” --
THE INCAPACITATED PERSON’S LIFE PROTECTION ACT

What is “habeas corpus”?

“Habeas Corpus” is the Latin name for a special procedure, dating back to England in the Middle Ages, by which a court can review whether someone is being unlawfully deprived of liberty. It was used by English courts long before Parliament gave it statutory form in the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679. Brought over to the American colonies, it was considered such a fundamental source of protection of liberty that it was protected from suspension, except in cases like rebellion or invasion, by the U.S. Constitution.

Under “habeas corpus,” how does a federal court review a state court decision?

When every state court effort has failed, the person denied liberty files a petition in federal district court, which considers whether federally protected rights have been violated and which, in appropriate circumstances, can conduct fact-finding procedures. The losing party in federal district court can appeal to a federal circuit court of appeals. The Supreme Court can choose to hear an appeal from the appellate court.

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Terri’s case. Does that mean lower federal courts can’t do so?

No. When the Supreme Court chooses not to hear a particular appeal, that is not a ruling on the merits and sets no precedent. In fact, most habeas corpus proceedings in federal district court come after the Supreme Court has refused to consider a “direct” appeal from the highest state court.

Isn’t habeas corpus for people who are in jail?

Habeas corpus began as a means for prisoners to get court review of their detention, and the law refers to those who are “in custody.” However, as the U.S. Supreme Court noted in a 1968 case, “[T]he use of habeas corpus has not been restricted to situations in which the applicant is in actual, physical custody. ... [I]n the state courts, as in England, habeas corpus has been widely used by parents disputing over which is the fit and proper person to have custody of their child .... History, usage, and precedent can leave no doubt that, besides physical imprisonment, there are other restraints on a man's liberty, restraints not shared by the public generally, which have been thought sufficient in the English-speaking world to support the issuance of habeas corpus.”

Why does Congress need to act?

Although Terri’s case fits well conceptually with habeas corpus, it is unclear that the current statutes and precedents give her a right to it. Since the Constitution went into effect, Congress has frequently expanded, contracted, and modified both who has a right to habeas corpus and the standards for habeas corpus review. It has the clear constitutional authority to amend the law to make provision for cases like Terri’s.

When a case like Terri’s has been considered by the state courts, why should we add an extra layer of federal court review?

To avoid the danger that an innocent person might be put to death, those whom state courts have convicted of mass murder or other capital crimes have long had the recognized right to federal court habeas corpus review. If we accord that right to someone like John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy, shouldn’t we give at least equal protection to someone with a disability, charged with no crime, who is at risk of being starved and dehydrated to death?
TerrisFight (http://www.terrisfight.org)

Anne
March 4th, 2005, 09:27 PM
Press Release

For Immediate Release
March 5, 2005 - 3.30pm ET (GMT-5)

Attorneys for Bob and Mary Schindler have filed 17 affidavits in support of their motion asking Judge Greer to let medical evaluations be performed on Terri in light of recent advances in medical technologies. The affidavits are from various experts in the medical field. They are urging that Terri be evaluated based on the fact that new evaluation and therapeutic technologies can significantly impact brain damaged and disabled persons. Many of them have stated that there is strong likelihood that Terri is in a minimally conscious state.

More affidavits are expected to be filed next week in support of the Schindler's motion.

Affidavit of Dr. Ralph Ankenman, MD
Affidavit of Dr. Pamela Hyikn, SLP
Affidavit of Dr. Beatrice Engstrand, MD
Affidavit of Dr. Jill Joyce, Phd
Affidavit of Dr. Alyse Eytan, MD
Affidavit of Dr. Philip Kennedy, MD, Phd
Affidavit of Dr. Harry Sawyer Goldsmith, MD
Affidavit of Dr. Kyle Lakas, MS, CCC, SLP
Affidavit of Dr. Jacob Green, MD
Affidavit of Dr. Richard Neubauer, MD, PA
Affidavit of Dr. Carolyn Heron, MD
Affidavit of Dr. Ricardo Senno, MD, MS, FAAPMR
Affidavit of Dr. David Hopper, PhD
Affidavit of Dr. Stanley Terman, MD, Phd
Affidavit of Dr. Lawrence Huntoon, MD
Affidavit of Dr. J. Michael Uszler, MD
Affidavit of Dr. Richard Weidman, MD
See her website for details: TerrisFight (http://www.terrisfight.org)

Anne
March 5th, 2005, 03:08 PM
bump

Art Deco
March 5th, 2005, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by Anne

bump Keep up the good work Anne. :thumb:

Anne
March 7th, 2005, 06:36 PM
Important Action Items

March 7, 2005 – As you may already know, Terri’s case has reached a critical point. Judge George W. Greer has ordered that her nutrition and hydration be removed on March 18, 2005. This will begin a long and painful death process for Terri if his order is carried out.

There are still some things that can spare Terri, and disabled people like her, from this type of forced death. Some of them require your help.

1. Florida’s House and Senate are considering a dehydration and starvation protection act that would require stronger evidence of informed consent prior to removing assisted food and fluids from an incapacitated patient. If you are a Floridian, a disability advocate or an elder care advocate, you can let Florida’s lawmakers know that you want them to consider such an act.

Contact Florida’s Lawmakers here.
www.flsnate.gov – Senate
www.myfloridahouse.com - House

2. The US Congress will consider a bill titled the Incapacitated Person’s Legal Protection Act on Tuesday, March 8, 2005. This bill, if signed into law, would entitle incapacitated persons to the federal review of their rights (known as habeas corpus) and would help ensure that they have been fairly represented. You can encourage your representative to give favorable consideration of this act. Habeas corpus protections are currently available to the worst convicted criminals; this new law would make it clear that disabled Americans are entitled to at least as much legal protection.

Contact your representative here.
http://www.house.gov/writerep/ - US House of Representatives
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ - US Congress

3. Seventeen doctors – neurologists, physicians and pathologists, have signed statements in Terri Schiavo’s guardianship proceedings to support new neurological testing protocols for her. This is important because of recent findings that may support the position that Terri is not in a persistent vegetative state and can be trained to communicate in spite of her limitations. Disability advocates across North America are calling for an immediate moratorium on deprivation deaths for disabled people like Terri until these new protocols can be enacted as an updated avenue of testing. We ask that you contact your state representatives and ask that they consider such a moratorium.

Contact your state house and senate.
http://www.house.gov/writerep/ - US House of Representatives
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ - US Congress

4. The Justice Coalition has petitioned the Governor of the State of Florida to invoke statutory protections for Terri Schiavo pending an investigation into abuse, neglect and exploitation against her.

Sign the petition here.
http://www.justicecoalition.org/petition2.htm

5. Terri’s family have filed a number of motions and petitions to the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Pinellas and Pasco Counties and continue to process several different appeals in the Florida courts and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Read the latest here.
http://www.terrisfight.org

6. National press and media continue to misreport and misrepresent Terri’s situation. Such reporting does a tremendous disservice to vulnerable people and elderly and disabled persons throughout the United States. You can help by contacting the editors of your local newspapers and letting the truth be known.

Download the talking point list here.
http://www.terrisfight.org/talk.pdf

7. Over 200 internet bloggers have joined forces to support Terri Schiavo by publishing articles, commentary and information about her situation and legal case. You can join their ranks, read their updates and pass the information along to your friends.

Check out the blog sites here.
http://www.blogsforterri.com

Finally, on behalf of the family and legal team working hard to protect Terri Schiavo and vulnerable citizens like her, we thank you for your time and compassion and we hope that you will contact us with links, suggestions and your personal stories. Your continued support is beyond value.

Nineveh
March 8th, 2005, 10:15 AM
bump

Anne
March 8th, 2005, 01:09 PM
NOW IS THE TIME TO CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN 1-202-224-3121

switchboard will direct you to your rep

Tell them to enact the Incapacitated Person's Legal Protection Act

Anne
March 9th, 2005, 07:56 PM
bump

Nineveh
March 9th, 2005, 09:25 PM
Is there any news about how it's going?

I saw this blurb from FL... but that's about it :(


(CNSNews.com) - Florida state lawmakers Wednesday added a provision to a measure designed to prevent Terri Schindler Schiavo's feeding tube from being removed that would require the guardian of an incompetent person to spend a certain amount of time with a patient before ordering the removal, the Associated Press reports. The amendment states that a guardian must spend at least two hours per week over 12 weeks with the patient, or an average of 10 hours a month over a three-month period. The measure, which was approved by the House Health Care Regulation committee, presumes that an incompetent person wants to be given food and water, unless that person has signed an advance directive indicating otherwise.

Anne
March 10th, 2005, 01:26 AM
Wednesday March 9, 2005
Updates on Terri Schiavo

TALLAHASSEE, Florida, March 9, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A Florida legislature subcommittee passed a bill 7-4 today that seeks to limit the ability of a guardian to withdraw food and fluids from an incapacitated person. It must still pass to the House floor for a vote. A similar measure was also proposed in the Senate.

Lead sponsor, Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, said he hopes the bill will save Terri Schiavo. “If I have my way, we'll get it passed by the 18th (of March),” he said, as reported by orlandosentinel.com. March 18 is the date set by Florida Judge George W. Greer to have Terri’s feeding tube removed.

Greer meanwhile will decide today whether to grant a stay of Terri Schiavo’s starvation order, to allow the state’s Department of Children and Families to investigate abuse allegations against Terri’s husband and legal guardian, Michael Schiavo.

The World Federation of Catholic Medical Associations (FIAMC) issued a warning Sunday that allowing Terri’s starvation to proceed would “open the floodgates” to euthanasia of the disabled.

“If Terri, an innocent person, can be condemned to death, every person whose life will be considered of insufficient ‘quality’ by a guardian or the court will be in danger of euthanasia performed by withdrawal of basic and ordinary care,” warned FIAMC spokesman Gian Luigi Gigli, M.D., in a release.

“The importance of this case goes beyond this deplorable circumstance,” he said. “It will open the floodgates to euthanasia in the United States, at all ages, without even a legislative decision.”

“Following the teaching of Pope John Paul II and the evidence of medical sciences, we believe that no human being, including those in the permanent vegetative state, can be denied the respect due to a human person by provision of food and water, without which any person, regardless of his/her state of health, would be condemned to death.”

“Such a perversion of medicine will be the source of discrimination against other human beings, with enormous risks for human rights and democracy,” said the FIAMC statement.

In addition, an Empire Journal analysis pointed out that the legal firm representing the St. Petersburg Catholic diocese where Terri lives financially supported Judge Greer’s campaign for re-election to the bench.

Life Decisions International (LDI) President Douglas Scott criticized the Florida Catholic Conference and St. Petersburg bishop Robert N. Lynch for not being more vocal in support of Terri’s bid to live.

“Where is this Catholic ‘leader’ when one of his parishioners needs him the most”, Scott said. “Every member of the clergy, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, should be pounding the pulpit every Sunday, insisting that Terri’s life be spared. Every member of the clergy should be speaking out about Terri every day until this matter is resolved in Terri’s favor. This is not the time for cowardice, complacency or weakness. Terri’s life depends on it. Any member of the clergy who does not do all he can to save Terri’s life is party to any disaster that befalls her”.

Terri Schiavo, the subject of an ongoing legal battle between her parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, and Terri’s estranged husband and legal guardian, Michael Schiavo, is slated for starvation beginning March 18.

See the Empire Journal coverage: http://www.theempirejournal.com

Alan Keyes on the G. Gordon Liddy Show ~~~ March 7, 2005

G. GORDON LIDDY, HOST: All right, ladies and gentlemen, we are back here at the G. Gordon Liddy Show. I want to tell you that one of the people I admire most in American political life is Dr. Alan Keyes. He is an American politician, a diplomat, considered one of the leading African Americans in the Republican Party. He served in the U.S. foreign service, was appointed Ambassador to the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, then became a United States Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations under President Reagan. He has run for the presidency--and I think it's too bad that he didn't get it. He is an absolutely brilliant man.

Dr. Keyes, welcome to the G. Gordon Liddy Show again.

ALAN KEYES: Hi. How are you? I'm glad to be with you.

LIDDY: I'm fine. I'm really pleased to have you on again.

One of the things that we have been following here on the show is this horrible situation down in Florida, where a woman who is not being kept alive by heroic, technical means is being permitted by a judge to be killed by her husband--to death by starvation and thirst. I know you as a highly ethical person. What do you make of this? This is a terrible situation.

KEYES: First of all, I think it is a travesty, obviously. When we start defining giving food and water to somebody as extraordinary medical procedure, parents could put their children in the closet and starve them to death, and we would call it natural death. That's ridiculous.

The very idea of what is involved here ought to be repellant to the common sense and moral logic of everybody who hears about it--and I think it does have that effect on most people.

This is not a case, by the way, where you have got clear medical determination that this is a Persistent Vegetative State. All of that is mythical. In point of fact, there is a tremendous dispute, and what is clear is that the husband has refused any kind of therapy, any kind of effort, despite medical advances that have taken place dealing with patients who are in comas. We are in a situation where, to a certain extent, all of that is being ignored, and there are a lot of ins and outs to the particulars.

The thing that really intrigues me about this, though, and the question that I keep asking people right now--because you've got a question of life and death at stake--why is it that we are simply allowing the arbitrary judgment of this judge to prevail in a situation where the life and death right of an individual is at stake? The judge is pursuing, willy-nilly, to go down a road and claim that he has this judicial power. Meanwhile, the legislature has expressed its view. The courts struck it down, but the legislature feels like this is a travesty and ought not to take place.

LIDDY: And I know the governor does.

KEYES: And the governor feels this way.

Here is the simple question: why have we come to a situation where [we have] three equal branches, and we look at a situation like this and conclude that even though the other two branches believe that a travesty and a violation of basic, fundamental, constitutional, and human rights is taking place, and we act as if they can't do anything?

That is not true, by the way. The separation of powers leaves the judges in a position where they have their opinions but where those opinions on these fundamental matters do not have to be acted upon by the executive.

Why doesn't anybody remember this?

The executive has an independent will and judgment, responsible before God and under the Constitution of the United States and Florida for what he does with that executive power. He is like somebody who cannot plead "the judges made me do it," because the judges have no right to make the chief executive do anything.

I was rereading recently this simple passage that is there in the Federalist Papers. They are talking about the nature of judicial power, right?

LIDDY: Yes, they are.

KEYES: And it says, "The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgment."

LIDDY: Yes, but Dr. Keyes, we have seen, in numerous cases now, where the judiciary has ordered the state legislatures to impose taxes for schools and things like that. We have seen a situation where, up in Massachusetts, they said, "You must issue marriage licenses to persons of the same sex." I don't see why the people are so reluctant just to say no.

KEYES: Exactly. A matter of fact, what everybody is forgetting, we have separation of powers. You cannot have separation of powers if thewill of one branch is subordinate to the will of another branch. If there is a difference of view between the executive and the courts, or the legislature and the courts, the other branches can look the court in the eye and say, "No. . . ."

LIDDY: Exactly.

KEYES: "We have a separate will, we make a separate determination. We won't do what you say."

That is especially true of the executive, who, as an individual, takes an oath to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution, and who has a separate, individual, moral obligation to act in a conscientious fashion--rather than in this case, for instance, to allow a judicial murder to take place.

Jeb Bush is, I think, under a deep, personal, moral, and constitutional responsibility. If he sits on his hands and lets a judicial murder take place, he cannot plead that somebody else made him do it. He has a position that gives him the independent will and authority, and if a judge is doing something he regards as a travesty, he is under an obligation not to allow it to take place.

LIDDY: Indeed. And when we consider the relative authorities of the legislative branches and the judiciary, if we look to the federal situation in our federal Constitution, the Congress has the constitutional right to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the federal courts. So, if anyone should be superior, it would be, I would think, the legislature, which expresses the will of the people and is responsive to them.

KEYES: Well, the argument that was made in the Federalist Papers--and I was reading, by the way, from Federalist 78, in case anybody in your audience wants to take a look at it--but the argument that was made in the Federalist Papers was very clear, in terms of there being three separate and, in the sense of will and independence, equal branches, in the sense that the legislature has its own independent authority to determine the nature of the laws, and ultimately even to impeach the judges, and so forth; and the executive has the sole and separate responsibility for action, that is, for using the active arm of the state to do anything.

The judiciary does not have a share in that executive power. And under our systems of separation of powers, to give the judiciary that share--which some people have been doing tacitly and by argument--is to establish a clear and direct tyranny.

And this where I think we have come. We are dealing right now with a tyranny of the judges, in which they get to make decisions, force the execution of those decisions, just as if they had been elected to wield the executive power.

This is destroying the fundamental concept of separation that guarantees our liberty as a free people. And I think it is being done across the board, in Ten Commandments cases, in all kinds of cases, where executives need now to revisit the question of the separation of powers and wake up to the truth that they have a separate obligation--it is not just a right--they have a separate obligation to exercise their conscientious, independent judgment when the judiciary is ordering something or it issues an opinion that they believe is in contravention of basic constitutional law and right.

LIDDY: I am speaking with Dr. Alan Keyes. His doctorate is from Harvard University. And as I told you folks, he is one of the most articulate and accurate thinkers in the nation. Dr. Keyes, you mentioned the recent decisions of the Supreme Court. Mr. Justice Kennedy's decision with respect to persons who commit crimes prior to reaching their 18th birthday [exempting them from] execution and so forth. It is intellectually incoherent. I don't see how any person who has any command of the English language and of logic can be other than just befuddled by what he is trying to do here.

KEYES: Two things happened in that case. You have a judge basically saying that he--or the judges, by their own authority--can impose laws that haven't been passed by our legislature, and practices that aren't respected by our legislature or in any way representative of our people, can impose them by judicial fiat. That is what happened in this case. And [they are ruling] that it can be in an area that has traditionally been regarded as the exclusive prerogative of the legislature. If they can determine particulars like this, at what age shall we apply this penalty or that penalty, why not have the courts deciding everything?

The people say these are issues of rights and equity. Anything can be construed as an issue of right. Even the question of what the tax rate ought to be could be argued to be an issue of equal right. And if that is the case, then the judges have the right to decide what the tax rate should be, and simply to take over the government. That is why we are going down a road here that is dangerous.

LIDDY: And in some instances, they have actually done that in some state courts.

Dr. Keyes, what do you make of the Supreme Court of the United States, which is supposed to be interpreting the United States Constitution, going abroad and saying, "Well, what do they do in Sweden? What does the U.N. like?" and actually averring to treaties which we have rejected! I don't understand that.

KEYES: I think it is quite clear that you have courts now that are running wild, and that are imposing their dictation on the country, without regard to the Constitution, without regard to the laws. Under our system, laws can only be made by representative legislatures.

LIDDY: Yes.

KEYES: And if you start imposing laws from the bench, you have destroyed our representative system of government.

I think people ought to be outraged. They ought to see that our whole system is being destroyed.

When you can take that abuse and apply it to the particular case where you are allowing an individual to be murdered--that is to say, by positive act of omission, to be done to death--I don't see how anyone in this country feels safe anymore. Because that means, if somebody gets a judge on their side and decides to target you for death, you have had it. And they are claiming that nobody else can intervene to stop that.

LIDDY: In ancient Rome, they would execute criminals by chaining them to a rock somewhere and letting them starve and thirst to death. And that is exactly what is being done down here.

KEYES: And I don't understand--in Florida, you have a lot of people going to Florida to retire, you have elderly folks. If we are in a situation now where a family member can get a determination from a judge and say, "OK, I now have the right to let this person who needs care starve to death," I don't know why anybody who has reached their senior years would feel safe. If somebody has a motive to do them to death, they could find the judicial process, and put some judge in their pocket, and they will get it done.

When you are in that situation, and you are telling me that, in the face of everybody looking at it and saying, "No, that's a travesty," we are helpless to intervene? That's nonsense.

A chief executive like Jeb Bush--who sees that going on in his state, who sees essentially what amounts to a kind of judicial lynching taking place, of an innocent person being done to death by a court decision--is under an obligation due to his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution to move in and do something.

He has the executive power. The judges do not have executive power. And he can use that executive power conscientiously to safeguard the integrity of constitutional right. That's what he ought to be doing in this case, not waiting on the courts to decide.

And if people say the chief executive could abuse that power--no. The legislature has the right to remove the chief executive when he gets abusive.

These are active obligations. We cannot have the separation of powers if the branches don't actively use their powers and act according to their responsibilities.

LIDDY: Dr. Keyes, once again you have very articulately spelled out what is at stake here. I want to thank you. We've run out of time. I want to thank you so much for visiting the show again.

KEYES: I'm glad to do it. Thank you.

http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/media/interviews/05_03_07liddy.htm

Nineveh
March 10th, 2005, 03:31 PM
Thank you Anne :)

Art Deco
March 11th, 2005, 07:30 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Thank you Anne :)


www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43235


Man offers $1 million dollars to Terri's husband to transfer custody to parents...:thumb:

Nineveh
March 11th, 2005, 05:19 PM
Thanks Art :)

Here's (http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/3/112005a.asp) something I found today (it's down at the bottom of the article) ...


So far, however, the court in Florida has not proven itself a friend to Terri Schiavo -- at least, not in the case of the Sixth Circuit Court of Judge George W. Greer. In fact, according to Pamela Hennessy, media director for the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation, Judge Greer has actually ignored the laws of the State of Florida in ordering the premeditated killing of the disabled Terri Schiavo by her husband.

Hennessy says the three orders the Sixth Circuit Court judge issued on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week all but assure Terri's death by slow starvation and dehydration beginning on March 18 -- one week from today. First of all, she notes, Judge Greer ordered that Terri's family may not introduce oral nutrition and fluids after Terri's gastric feeding tube has been removed.

Members of the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation feel that order clearly violates a Florida law stating that incapacitated persons cannot be deprived of necessary services, including food and water.

Also, the judge has refused to allow updated medical tests on Terri to determine her true medical condition. Such tests could help clarify whether the disabled woman's court-ordered starvation might be viewed as a mercy killing or assisted suicide, terminal actions that are both illegal in Florida. And another court orders from Greer denies Terri relief from a judgment based on his own error in dismissing pertinent testimony in 2000 -- testimony that would have assisted the court in determining the Florida woman's true "end of life" wishes.

The only testimony in support of removing Terri's feeding tube includes the self-serving testimony of her guardian, Michael Schiavo (which, according to the Foundation, is inadmissible under state law), and hearsay from members of his immediate family.

The Foundation's media director says the failure of the federal circuit court jurist to consider all the evidence of Terri's attitudes toward life pro-longing measures is, in the Foundation's opinion, a clear violation of Florida statutes. And she feels the judge should be held accountable to the law for his actions.

"If there is a single person following this who doesn't believe Judge Greer has legislated from the bench, trampled Florida's laws, and deprived Terri Schiavo of her retained rights, they are simply not paying attention," Hennessy says. She contends that citizens, -- disability and eldercare advocates especially -- need to be calling for Greer's immediate impeachment.

Anne
March 12th, 2005, 11:23 PM
WASHINGTON (BP)--Supporters of a federal legislative remedy that could save Terri Schiavo's life continued to push for quick action in Congress March 10.

At a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Sen. Sam Brownback, R.-Kan., said a new bill to aid the disabled Florida woman is on an expedited route and has the potential for immediate Senate passage. Senators are being asked if they object to the bill, the Incapacitated Persons Legal Protection Act, with the hope that a unanimous consent agreement might be reached on the bill, he said.

Schiavo's feeding tube is scheduled to be removed March 18 after which she would die within days of dehydration and starvation.

“If there is no objection to it, it could pass even yet today,” Brownback said. “That may or may not happen.”
Bills at federal and state level attempt to save Terri (http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/3990.article)

Art Deco
March 13th, 2005, 07:28 AM
Originally posted by Anne

Bills at federal and state level attempt to save Terri (http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/3990.article) Thanks for the info Anne :)

Agape4Robin
March 13th, 2005, 08:28 AM
I have to put in my 2 cents worth here.
I live in Florida, and I know about this case almost personally. Let me explain........ my father was in hospice care last year and guess who his neighbor was??? You got it....Terri Schiavo. Her room was under 24 hour police guard. One day, I went into her room completely by accident.....I was looking for the nurses station........ the police officer abruptly asked me to leave..and I did, but I was stunned! I met her parents, Mary and Bob Schindler. They are very caring and devoted to their daughter.
I thought it strange that she would be placed in a hospice setting. Prior to that, she had been in a nursing home facility....but since the trial began, she was placed in hospice.....why? Seems to me that the plan was that she would die there! Amazing, huh? Before the final outcome of her "husbands" lawsuit....she lay in a hospice.
:think:

Did you know that before he was awarded the malpractice settlement, he went before the jury and swore to use the money to rehabilitate his wife?:rolleyes:

My question is this......if her will to die and not be kept in the current state she was in was so important to him, then why didn't he say so then? Why didn't he say so when they were trying to revive her? Why now? And why wasn't ONE PENNY of that malpractice award used to rehab Terri? I think Michael has something to hide.....like the real reason her heart was stopped for so long.........

Why hasn't there been any hearing to discuss the obvious conflict of interest as Michael being her "husband"?:confused:
If MY husband were living with another woman, and having kids with her, I CERTAINLY would NOT want him to make ANY decisions about MY LIFE and most certainly NOT my DEATH......NO MATTER WHAT!!!!!!!!!! :nono: :nono: :nono: :nono:
Come on folks....where's the common sense here??:doh:
Any way....that's my 2 cents!!!

Art Deco
March 13th, 2005, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by Agape4Robin

I have to put in my 2 cents worth here.
I live in Florida, and I know about this case almost personally. Let me explain........ my father was in hospice care last year and guess who his neighbor was??? You got it....Terri Schiavo. Her room was under 24 hour police guard. One day, I went into her room completely by accident.....I was looking for the nurses station........ the police officer abruptly asked me to leave..and I did, but I was stunned! I met her parents, Mary and Bob Schindler. They are very caring and devoted to their daughter.
I thought it strange that she would be placed in a hospice setting. Prior to that, she had been in a nursing home facility....but since the trial began, she was placed in hospice.....why? Seems to me that the plan was that she would die there! Amazing, huh? Before the final outcome of her "husbands" lawsuit....she lay in a hospice.
:think:

Did you know that before he was awarded the malpractice settlement, he went before the jury and swore to use the money to rehabilitate his wife?:rolleyes:

My question is this......if her will to die and not be kept in the current state she was in was so important to him, then why didn't he say so then? Why didn't he say so when they were trying to revive her? Why now? And why wasn't ONE PENNY of that malpractice award used to rehab Terri? I think Michael has something to hide.....like the real reason her heart was stopped for so long.........

Why hasn't there been any hearing to discuss the obvious conflict of interest as Michael being her "husband"?:confused:
If MY husband were living with another woman, and having kids with her, I CERTAINLY would NOT want him to make ANY decisions about MY LIFE and most certainly NOT my DEATH......NO MATTER WHAT!!!!!!!!!! :nono: :nono: :nono: :nono:
Come on folks....where's the common sense here??:doh:
Any way....that's my 2 cents!!! Agape4Robin, You raise some interesting questions. I read today that her husband (sic) has turned down the $1 million offered for his wife's life. He also has turned down a privious $10 million as well. Guess what, this guy has something to hide. The thinking goes that if he released custody of his wife to her parents she would get medical help that just might allow Terri to tell the world that Michael was responsible for her present condition.

That's why he wants her dead and cremated. America's soul is on trial. If America allows this innocent women to be tortured to death at the hands of a federal judge and evil spouse, God will hammer Florida again for this aggravated evil. :madmad:

Nineveh
March 13th, 2005, 07:42 PM
Agape4Robin,
I have some of those same questions myself.... I hope to hear the answers when he's put on tirial ( hope springs eternal ) :)




In a personal telephone conversation yesterday with Terri Schiavo's father, Bob Schindler, actor-director Mel Gibson encouraged the Schindler family to "never give up and continue to pray."

Shortly after the telephone conversation Gibson sent a fax to the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation with the following statement to be read at today's rally in Pinellas Park, Fla.: "I fully support the efforts of Mr. & Mrs. Schindler to save their daughter, Terri Schiavo, from a cruel starvation. Terri's husband should sign the care of his wife over to her parents so she can be properly cared for."full story (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43272)

Art Deco
March 14th, 2005, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Agape4Robin,
I have some of those same questions myself.... I hope to hear the answers when he's put on tirial ( hope springs eternal ) :) Another great article on Terri Schiavo:

www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43283



Also: www.reclaimamerica.org They used 1000 roses delivered to the old Capitol courtyard in Tallahassee Florida to symbolize Terri's plight by allowing the roses to wither away.

Could we begin a War of the Roses by all concerned Americans sending one Rose via FTD to the hospice Terri is being confined in. All we need is a good address to get the Roses moving as a symbol of concern over Terri's life and the soul of America.

Again, we need a good address :help:

Granite
March 14th, 2005, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by Art Deco

Agape4Robin, You raise some interesting questions. I read today that her husband (sic) has turned down the $1 million offered for his wife's life. He also has turned down a privious $10 million as well. Guess what, this guy has something to hide. The thinking goes that if he released custody of his wife to her parents she would get medical help that just might allow Terri to tell the world that Michael was responsible for her present condition.

That's why he wants her dead and cremated. America's soul is on trial. If America allows this innocent women to be tortured to death at the hands of a federal judge and evil spouse, God will hammer Florida again for this aggravated evil. :madmad:

I look a good conspiracy theory, but how exactly could Michael been "responsible" for her condition? If I understand, what caused her brain damage was biological--something she was born with.

Nineveh
March 14th, 2005, 12:08 PM
granite,
"lack of oxygen to the brian" was what caused her condition.

In General,
This (http://www.zimp.org/stuff/05%20-%20TerriDiscussesDivorceBobby.htm) is interesting, heresay, but interesting....

Anne
March 15th, 2005, 12:59 AM
bump

Art Deco
March 15th, 2005, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by Anne

bump


www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/14/223311.shtml


From the article:
Terri Schiavo has a God-given right to life, and a constitutional right to be protected. Therefor, the Florida judiciary has absolutely no business determing her fate. This hideous decision will cheapen the value of human life as it is recognized by the United States government, and will be a monumental step toward rendering obsolete the constitutional right to life by making it a conditional right, vulnerable to neglect and abuse by the very powers put in place to protect it.

BillyBob
March 15th, 2005, 07:47 AM
Here's a way to save Terri.

http://www.glennbeck.com/news/03142005.shtml

Art Deco
March 15th, 2005, 07:58 AM
Originally posted by BillyBob

Here's a way to save Terri.

http://www.glennbeck.com/news/03142005.shtml Thanks for the heads up BillyBob. :thumb:

BillyBob
March 15th, 2005, 08:13 AM
I was thinking about throwing in a hundred bucks.

Crow
March 15th, 2005, 10:28 AM
One thing that I've been curious about~~

If the husband has taken on a common-law wife, and had children by that wife, couldn't someone sue for divorce on the grounds of abandonent on Terri's behalf? True, he has stayed involved in her affairs, but he has, in the sense of marriage, abandoned that relationship with her and initiated a new one.

It is only by reason of his marital relationship with Terri that he has any say in her fate.

?????

Yorzhik
March 15th, 2005, 11:08 AM
The divorce route has been tried, but the murderous judge tossed it.

Yorzhik
March 15th, 2005, 11:11 AM
Also, the 1 million dollar offer by the California businessman being represented by Gloria Alred (sp), is still valid as far as I know.

It seems money is not the issue. It looks like he is guilty of putting her where she is. I cannot think of another motivation.

Nineveh
March 16th, 2005, 08:02 AM
March 15th:


Key members of the Florida House and Senate reached a deal yesterday on a bill to prevent Terri Schiavo from being allowed to starve to death under a court order requested by her estranged husband.

For the second time in less than two years, the state lawmakers are prepared to intervene in the case of the brain-damaged woman, who requires a feeding tube to keep her alive.

The proposed legislation would prevent caretakers of a person in a "persistent vegetative state" from withholding food and water in the absence of a written directive.

In 2003, "Terri's Law" enabled Gov. Jeb Bush to intervene the second time Terri Schiavo's feeding tube was removed. The law later was ruled unconstitutional, however, by the Florida Supreme Court, which said it violated the legal separation between the three branches of government.

Michael Schiavo won a court order in 2000 to have his wife's feeding tube removed, claiming she was in a "persistent vegetative state" and had declared orally she wouldn't want to live in such a condition.

Parents Robert and Mary Schindler, however, insist their daughter, while severely handicapped, is responsive and demonstrates a strong will to live. They have filed a flurry of motions to prevent removal of the feeding tube, scheduled for Friday, after 1 p.m.

The Florida bill is expected to come up for a vote Friday.

Terri Schiavo is not hooked up to any machines, but she requires the small feeding tube for nourishment and hydration. She collapsed under disputed circumstances Feb. 25, 1990, suffering severe brain damage when her heart stopped momentarily. Michael Schiavo attributes the collapse to an eating disorder, but the Schindlers strongly suspect he tried to strangle her.

The Schindlers have pleaded with Michael Schiavo to divorce their daughter, pointing out he has been living with another woman for 10 years, with whom he has two children. full story (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43310)

the Sibbie
March 16th, 2005, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by Crow

One thing that I've been curious about~~

If the husband has taken on a common-law wife, and had children by that wife, couldn't someone sue for divorce on the grounds of abandonent on Terri's behalf? True, he has stayed involved in her affairs, but he has, in the sense of marriage, abandoned that relationship with her and initiated a new one.

It is only by reason of his marital relationship with Terri that he has any say in her fate.

????? Yeah, I think it's time they really crank up the heat on Michael. Isn't it amazing how lightly divorce is regared in most cases except for this one?

Anne
March 16th, 2005, 06:13 PM
bump

Art Deco
March 16th, 2005, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by Anne

bump

www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/16/105547.shtml


From the article:
Senate Democrats are expected to resist the proposed legislation, which would give federal courts jurisdiction over Schiavo's case... How low can these stinking anti-God Secular Humanist Democrats go? They really are low life Nazis. How can anyone call themselves Christian and affiliate themselves with this blood soaked Political Party?

And where is George Bush on this issue. Has anyone heard anything from the White House on this issue? :confused: ...:doh:

Agape4Robin
March 16th, 2005, 08:34 PM
www.sptimes.com/2005/03/16/State/_Who_there_would_take.shtml (http://www.sptimes.com/2005/03/16/state/_Who_there_would_take.shtml)

This interview with Michael Schiavo was on the front page of our newspaper.:nono:

I think he has said nothing that would convince me that he loves his "wife"....tell me what ya'll think:kookoo:

Agape4Robin
March 16th, 2005, 08:39 PM
:o Sorry guys....the link wouldn't work right....I'm such an amatuer!!:doh:
but you can go to www.sptimes.com and see the interview with Michael Schiavo....jerk face

ggggggrrrrrrrrrrrrr:mad:

P.S. It would be dated for Wednesday March 16th.

Yorzhik
March 16th, 2005, 09:03 PM
That guy is a real jerk. After the article I'm becoming more convinced he is responsible for her condition. #*%@*& jerk.

ShadowMaid
March 16th, 2005, 09:24 PM
He sounds like a real idiot to me. Didn't they offer him money and a divorce, and he still wouldn't take it? Or something like that?

Anne
March 17th, 2005, 12:07 AM
The picture of Terri , taken shortly after the incident causing her brain damage, seems quite sweet. http://www.sptimes.com/2005/03/16/images/medium/A_1_12acouple__0316.jpg

temple2006
March 17th, 2005, 01:02 AM
I have added my name to the petition. I agree that this would be legalized murder done to satisfy some person's questionable motive.

Turbo
March 17th, 2005, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by Agape4Robin

:o Sorry guys....the link wouldn't work right....I'm such an amatuer!!:doh: I fixed your link. You didn't have "State" capitalized before.

Granite
March 17th, 2005, 08:55 AM
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200503170758.asp

Good stuff.

I'll be upfront: IF Terri had specified before her heart attack that she wished to be removed from feeding tubes, etc., I'd support that decision. In this hearsay situation, however, I'd like to see her parents care for her. To do otherwise is, as the article says, simply torture.

Nineveh
March 17th, 2005, 10:48 AM
March 17th 2005


The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill Wednesday night that might save the life of Terri Schindler Schiavo and other medically incapacitated people.

The "Protection of Incapacitated Persons Act of 2005" (H.R. 1332), which passed by voice vote, now moves to the U.S. Senate for consideration.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), who introduced the legislation with Rep. Dave Weldon (R-Fla.), told his fellow lawmakers the bill would protect Terri, a brain-damaged Florida woman, from starving to death by allowing a federal court to consider her case - unrestricted by the findings of state courts.

Cases like Terri's would be moved to federal courts after state remedies are exhausted.

"What's going on in Florida regarding Terri Schiavo is nothing short of inhumane," Sensenbrenner said. "She's facing what amounts to a death sentence, ensuring she will slowly starve to death over a matter of weeks."

Terri's feeding and hydration tube will be removed at her husband's insistence, and against her parents' wishes, at 1 p.m. EST on Friday.

"Terri Schiavo -- a woman who smiles and cries and who is not on a respirator or any other 24-hour-a-day medical equipment -- has committed no crime and she has done nothing wrong. Yet the Florida courts seem bent on setting an extremely dangerous precedent by saying we must stop feeding someone who can't feed herself. Who's next -- the disabled or those late in life?

Sensenbrenner called the bill a way to reinforce the legal protection for the most vulnerable, and he noted that it applies not just to Terri, but to anyone who might find themselves in Terri's situation.

"What Terri Schiavo and all disabled people deserve, in contested cases, is for justice to tilt toward life," Sensenbrenner said; and when a person's intention regarding life-support are unclear, it's all the more important to have a federal court provide a "double check for life," he added.

"This bill takes that extra step, not just for Terri Schiavo, but for all of us."

The Christian Coalition of America is among the pro-life groups praising the House for its quick action on the bill, and it is urging the Senate to also pass the bill when it reaches the Senate floor - probably today (Thursday).

"There were numerous outstanding speeches on the House floor Wednesday night in support of "Terri's Law II," the Christian Coalition noted.

The group expects President George W. Bush to sign 'Terri's Law II' on Thursday night or Friday morning, and it noted that Bush's brother, Gov. Jeb Bush, signed the first law to save Terri's life in Oct. 2003.

That Florida law was ultimately overturned, and a Florida judge has repeatedly ruled against motions filed by Terri's parents since then.cite (http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200503\NAT2005 0317a.html)

Agape4Robin
March 17th, 2005, 03:09 PM
In the interview with Michael, he made the comment that Terri has no feelings, that the woman he knew was no longer "in there". How does he know this? is he psychic?:kookoo: Obviously he has NO understanding about the spirit or soul.:nono: Even though Terri cannot communicate effectively with the world outside of her body, does NOT mean that she has no feelings!!! Medical science has proved that even totally unresponsive people in a coma can hear and understand things that are being said to them and about them. Perhaps her lack of responsiveness to HIM on the FEW occaisions that he has visited her, is her way of communicating that she understands he is a jerkface!:freak: Maybe she is somehow aware that he has a "fiancee"? And kids??!!

He said...."just look at the cat scans of her brain...the cerebral cortex has been depleted.....(paraphrased)" Those were taken approximately 5 years ago....technology has been advanced soooo much since then and new tests should be done. Remember, they used to think that a fetus at 18 weeks was "just a blob of tissue", but with the new 3D and 4D ultrasound technology, we know alot more about the developement of the fetus.......it looks alot like a human baby at 18 weeks....imagine that!!! God bless new advancements in medical technology!!

Again, I don't buy that he has nothing to hide. :ha: :nono:

I pray that the federal government will intervene not just on Terri's behalf, but on behalf of all those in her position. She is not on "life support"....she simply has a feeding tube.

Keep Terri and her family in your prayers and pray for Michael as well, that he would come to know Christ.:thumb:

P.S. Thanx Turbo!!!!!:wave:

Anne
March 17th, 2005, 08:23 PM
You might find this rather 'interesting': Michael Schiavo on Nightline (http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=584124&page=1)

SCHIAVO: She didn't leave any written instructions. She has verbally expressed her wishes to me and other people.

BURY: She had verbally expressed them in what context exactly?

SCHIAVO: Through watching some TV program, a conversation that happened regarding her uncle that was very ill.

BURY: And how long ago was that?

SCHIAVO: Oh, we're talking — it's now been 15 years. We're talking a couple of year, three years before this happened to Terri.

BURY: So there's no kind of written record at all. It's basically your recollection and those of other family members.

SCHIAVO: Yes, it is.
He seems to really believe that we should believe that removing the feeding tube will just cause Terri to gently pass away in her sleep:doh:

BURY: Your wife's family and their supporters have been arguing in the most graphic terms that what you are going to allow happen on Friday, in their words, is in effect condemning your wife to a cruel death by starvation.

I'd like you to address that charge from them.

SCHIAVO: That's one of their soapboxes they've been on for a long time.

Terry will not be starved to death. Her nutrition and hydration will be taken away. This happens across this country every day.

Death through removing somebody's nutrition is very painless. That has been brought to the courts many of times. Doctors have come in and testified. It is a very painless procedure. Terry can't — she has no cortex left. She doesn't feel pain. She doesn't feel hunger.

So what's going to happen is slowly — her potassium and her electrolytes will slowly diminish and she will drift off to a nice little sleep and eventually pass on to be with God.

Anne
March 18th, 2005, 12:11 AM
Kate, due to a catastrophic brain stem stroke, was dependent on a feeding tube for all her nourishment and had her feeding tube turned off for over a week. She, unlike most others, can understand what Terri is going through.
Unfortunately I couldn't get this to work as a link :help:
"www.theempirejournal.com/0317051_Us_House_Passes_Terris_Law%20II_To_Save_Sc hiavo.htm"

Nineveh
March 18th, 2005, 08:40 AM
I couldn't either... odd.... :(

Art Deco
March 18th, 2005, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by Art Deco And where is George Bush on this issue. Has anyone heard anything from the White House on this issue? :confused: ...:doh:


President's Statement on Terri Schiavo

The case of Terri Schiavo raises complex issues. Yet in instances like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws, and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life. Those who live at the mercy of others deserve our special care and concern. It should be our goal as a nation to build a culture of life, where all Americans are valued, welcomed, and protected - and that culture of life must extend to individuals with disabilities.

# # #


Well, a tepid response, is better than none. . .I guess... :doh:

Nineveh
March 18th, 2005, 11:36 AM
March 18th 2005


As a deadline loomed, U.S. Senate Republicans sought to keep severely brain-damaged Terri Schiavo alive Friday with an invitation to bring her to Washington, and an attorney for her parents said they hoped the move would buy them more time.

The Senate Health Committee has requested that Terri Schiavo and her husband, Michael, appear at an official committee hearing on March 28. Earlier Friday, a House committee was issuing congressional subpoenas to stop doctors from disconnecting the tube.

U.S. marshals were planning to serve subpoenas at Terri Schiavo's hospice on Friday, according to marshals spokeswoman Lisa Alfonso.

Michael Schiavo has waged a yearslong court battle with his parents-in-law, contending his 41-year-old wife, who has been in a persistent vegetative state since 1990, would not want to live that way.

Courts have cleared the way for him to remove her feeding tube as early as 1 p.m. Friday. The tube has been removed twice in the past and then reinserted as the battle continued.

"It is a contempt of Congress to prevent or discourage someone from following the subpoena that's been issued," David Gibbs, the attorney for her parents, said. "What the U.S. Congress is saying is, 'We want to see Terri Schiavo.'"

"The family is prayerfully excited about their daughter going before the United States Congress for the whole world to see how alive she is."

He said that despite her brain damage, she would be able to travel. A statement from the office of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., on Friday said the purpose of the hearing was to review health care policies and practices relevant to the care of non-ambulatory people.

Frist's statement noted that it is a federal crime to harm or obstruct a person called to testify before Congress.

Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Florida office, said his group's attorneys were working with Michael Schiavo's attorneys to determine if the subpoenas would block the scheduled removal of the tube.

"This is clearly an effort to circumvent a lawful court order by a state judge," Simon said. "I am not sure how a subpoena, which is ordinarily done to produce records or somebody to testify, can essentially have the effect of an injunction overriding the orders of a court."

Terri Schiavo's father, Bob Schindler, went into the Woodside Hospice in Pinellas Park at about 9:30 a.m. to visit his daughter. Outside, about three dozen people prayed and wept.

"What can wash away our sins? Nothing but the blood of Jesus," they sang. Messages on protest signs included "Impeach Greer.com," a reference to a judge in the case, and "Execution - It's Not Just for the Guilty Anymore."

In Tallahassee, the Florida House on Thursday passed a bill 78-37 to block the withholding of food and water from patients in a persistent vegetative state who did not leave specific instructions regarding their care. But hours later, the Senate defeated a different measure 21-16. The sponsor of another state Senate didn't bring it for a vote because it didn't have enough support.

Gibbs also has said he would ask a federal judge in Tampa to block the removal and review the actions of state courts. Such habeas corpus appeals seek to require the government to justify its actions.

As part of the last-minute flurry of activity, the Florida judge who approved the withdrawal of the feeding tube denied a request from the state to keep her alive. The state appealed that decision to the Florida Supreme Court, which promptly dismissed it. The U.S. Supreme Court also denied another appeal.

At the White House, President Bush left little doubt where he stands, saying, "those who live at the mercy of others deserve our special care and concern." His brother, Gov. Jeb Bush, long has supported the parents' efforts and urged lawmakers to act before it was too late.

Schiavo suffered severe brain damage in 1990 when her heart stopped because of a chemical imbalance, and court-appointed doctors say she is in a persistent vegetative state. Her husband says she told him she would not want to be kept alive artificially. Her parents dispute that, and say she could get better.cite (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050318/D88TGEE81.html)

Crow
March 18th, 2005, 12:01 PM
A judge just blocked the removal of the feeding tube.

Granite
March 18th, 2005, 12:05 PM
And Terri's been subpoened by Congress.

On Fire
March 18th, 2005, 01:07 PM
AP: Case judge reinstates order to remove Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. Details soon.

aikido7
March 18th, 2005, 03:07 PM
It would help if they showed a current video of the poor woman, instead of playing those obvious clips filmed at least a decade ago...

BillyBob
March 18th, 2005, 03:08 PM
The tube has been removed.

BillyBob
March 18th, 2005, 03:09 PM
Somebody should remove your tube, Aikido......

Nineveh
March 18th, 2005, 07:00 PM
Attorney Calls Efforts to Save Terri Schiavo 'Thuggery'
By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
March 18, 2005

(1st Add: Includes reaction and additional background.)

(CNSNews.com) - The attorney leading Michael Schiavo's effort to end his wife's life called efforts by Congress Friday to save Terri Schindler Schiavo "thuggery." He said lawmakers who supported the action "should be ashamed of themselves."

"What we experienced today in the subpoena issued by the United States House of Representatives is nothing short of thuggery," Felos said. "It was odious, it was shocking it was disgusting and I think all Americans should be alarmed about that."

The House Government Reform Committee issued subpoenas earlier Friday to Terri, her husband, the hospice where she is being held and her parents to testify at a March 28 hearing. The subpoenas forbid any action that would harm Terri as a congressional witness, including the removal of her hydration and nutrition tube or gastrostomy.

Terri's feeding tube was removed almost immediately after Pinellas County, Fla., Circuit Judge George Greer ordered the hospice staff to disregard the congressional subpoenas. His previous order had been temporarily stayed by Pinellas Circuit Court Chief Judge David Demers because Greer was not immediately available when the subpoenas were served.

Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, called the removal of Terri's feeding tube "truly a tragedy.

"Despite what Judge George Greer, the lawyers and the news media want the public to think, Terri Schiavo is not a 'vegetable,' nor is she 'terminally ill,'" Brown said. "Terri functions as a living, breathing, human person who is sustained by normal hydration and nutrition, the same as every other living human person."

Felos, a noted "right-to-die" activist and author, urged both Congress and the Florida legislature to take no further action in the case and to "let Terri go in peace." But as Cybercast News Service previously reported, Dr. David Stevens, a medical doctor who also has a master's degree in bioethics, has said that Terri's death by dehydration and starvation will be anything but peaceful.

"She's likely to become dizzy and begin to have cramping in her arms and legs. That's because her electrolytes, her sodium, potassium and other electrolytes in her blood start getting out of whack because of lack of fluids," Stevens said.

Stevens, who serves as executive director of the Christian Medical Association, said Terri's body will experience other effects due to the forced dehydration that many might not have considered.

"She'll see decreased secretions. If she tries to cry, she won't be able to make tears very well, if at all," Stevens said. "Her mouth will become dry and saliva thick. You can have cracking of the [mucous membranes] of the mouth and lips as they dry out."

Those external symptoms of dehydration will be accompanied by internal effects, Stevens said.

"People often get headaches, then [become] lethargic and finally go into coma," Stevens continued. "It actually can cause seizures.

"As it progressively gets worse, what happens [are] the physical signs. Her blood pressure will drop, her heart rate will pick up. She'll actually, ultimately go into shock," Stevens explained. "You just don't have enough fluid to keep your blood pressure up, and it drops so low, and that sometimes can be a terminal event, or an arrhythmia of her heart.

"Her blood will get thicker," Stevens continued. "Sometimes, people who are severely dehydrated will actually have strokes just because the blood gets so thick that it clots. It's not a pretty picture."

Felos disputed that the members of Congress who acted to prevent Terri's life from being taken by dehydration and starvation could have been acting out of compassion for her.

"She (Terri) has become a pawn in a political football game between different elements in this country and at this point she, unfortunately, is nothing, I believe, nothing more than a cause for certain elements to prove their political prowess and political power," Felos charged. "They should be ashamed of themselves."

Felos said Michael Schiavo was not present when Terri's feeding tube was removed but had returned to her room afterwards. He also said that Terri's parents and siblings could visit Terri as often and for as long as they wish now that the feeding tube has been removed.

In the past, Schiavo had blocked family visits when the Schindlers pursued legal efforts to protect Terri.

Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council, said in a written statement that "This is a sad day for our country that we as a nation are allowing an innocent woman to be sentenced to a painful death of dehydration and starvation.

Perkins also called Greer's order to the hospice staff to disobey the congressional subpoenas “the height of judicial arrogance."

"It is astonishing the Florida Judge George Greer would defy Congress by carrying out his order to begin Terri's starvation," Perkins said. "We need our leaders in Congress to intercept Judge Greer and demand that he honor the issued subpoena.

"I urge Congress to assert their rightful authority and not run from the courts," Perkins concluded.

As Cybercast News Service reported earlier Friday, House Majority Leader Tom Delay promised that congressional intervention in the matter was far from over.

"We haven't stopped working on it. We will fight for Terri's life and spend all the time necessary to do that," DeLay (R-Texas) said. "So, to friends, family and millions of people praying around the world this Palm Sunday weekend don't be afraid. Terri Schiavo will not be forsaken.'"

The Senate has adjourned for the Easter recess and would have to be called back to Washington to vote on any legislative remedy before their scheduled April 4 return.

To view the archive of the Cybercast News Service's coverage on Terri Schindler Schiavo, click here (http://www.cnsnews.com/specialreports/2003/schiavo.asp).cite (http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200503\CUL20 050318b.html)

Anne
March 19th, 2005, 12:33 AM
Terri cried when told she will die: Attorney: Terri cried at news (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43383)


Weller essentially told Terri Schiavo, "You had better say you want to live or they will kill you. Just say you want to live."

Schiavo responded with a drawn out, "IIIIII," then screamed out "waaaaaaaa" so loudly that a police officer stationed outside the room came in.

The officer then ordered Weller removed from the room, according to Terry.

The event was witnessed by Terri Schiavo's sister Suzanne Vitadamo and Suzanne's husband Michael.

Ninjashadow
March 19th, 2005, 01:06 AM
That pretty much proves that she doesn't want to die. Her husband is a piece of garbage.

Art Deco
March 19th, 2005, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by ninjashadow

That pretty much proves that she doesn't want to die. Her husband is a piece of garbage.


www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43381

From the article:Barbarity In America
Hitler famously said, "The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity...The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity." Hitler spent much of his table talk, faithfully recorded by Martin Bormann, attacking Judeo/Christian ethics: "This filthy reptile raises its head whenever there is a sign of weakness in the state, and therefore it must be stamped on. We have no sort of use for a fairy story invented by the Jews."

I shudder for my country to think that such acts of bararity can take place in the world's foremost democracy and humanity's guarantor of liberty and freedom.Let's turn Hitler's phrase, "This filthy reptile raises its head whenever there is a sign of weakness in the state..." (Secular Humanism) this filthy reptile, raises its head whenever there is a sign of weakness in the Church.

What does Secular Humanism say about the sanctity of human life? From the Humanist Manifesto II under Democratic Society
To enhance freedom and dignity the individual must experience a full range of civil liberties in all societies...It also includes a recognition of an individuals right to die with dignity, euthanasia, and the right to suicide. This is the genesis of the evil that has attacked the soul of America. This is the evil that is in the process of killing Teri Schiavo. Where is the Church in America on this issue? Silent? May God have mercy on our souls...:(

Nineveh
March 19th, 2005, 08:10 AM
Day 1 :(

Zakath
March 19th, 2005, 08:55 AM
Follow the money, I always say...

I find it interesting that the woman's parents started a foundation to raise money to pay their legal bills. Those are legal bills that would not have occured if they were not trying to challenge the legality of their daughter's marriage in the first place...

The foundation was recently fined (February 8, 2005) by the state of Florida government for not filing the required legal papers to register it with the state. Quite a significant (and rather fundamental) mistake for a foundation that allegedly exists to handle her legal affairs, among other things...

... then of course there's the minor issue that the foundation is a for-profit entity, with any profits going to the Schindlers themselves... :greedy:

After checking the foundation web site, so far as I can ascertain, the Schindlers are quick to point out how Schiavo's husband is spending his money, yet they have refused to divulge how much money they've raised through the foundation capitalizing on her condition.

As usual, the lawyers get rich and the legislators get publicity... all paid for by the gullible public. :nono:

aikido7
March 19th, 2005, 09:17 AM
Every and anytime anybody talks about what they would like done if they are paralyzed, incontinent, demented or suffering due to old age or an accident, why do they always say KEEP ME ALIVE AT ALL COSTS????

There has been little information on Schiavo's husband on this point.

Why would he even CLAIM his wife had ever said such a thing to him????

avatar382
March 19th, 2005, 10:17 AM
Time to play the Devil's Advocate:

People in a Persistant Vegetative State (PVS) have lost cognitive ability. They retain their sleep-wake cycle, and involuntary function, but the part of their brain that controls their higher function, personality, memory, basically, everything that makes them a person is destroyed. Even if medicine was advanced enough to grow a new cerebellum (with stem cells?), it would be like putting a newborn in an adult body.

Of course, the whole controversy in this case is whether or not Terri is in a PVS. Naturally, the parent's doctors say No, her husband's doctors say yes...

From what I have read about the condition on my own, and heard about the case from the news, her condition seems consistent with a PVS to me. Of course, I am no doctor, but seeing someone in a coma and seeing the videos on the website make it clear to me that she is not in a coma and suggest strongly that she is in a PVS.

Anyway, the thing everyone is missing is this: Terri's husband may very well be the class-A bastard everyone is making him out to be. But, that doesn't change the fact that he is still married to her. He is her legal guardian and has the legal right to make medical descisions on her behalf.

What does it say about the institution of marriage if a woman's parents can override the descisions of her husband when she is incapacitated? Is this the legal precident we want to set?

Now, if it can be proved in the a court of law that her husband is guilty of wrongdoing to Terri, then he should be punished, stripped of his guardianship, and that guardianship should be passed to the parents.

But, to my knowledge, no one has filed charges against the husband. He is, therefore, innocent until proven guilty, as they say. One cannot deny the possibility of Micheal's wrongdoing. But, one cannot also deny the possiblity that Terri's parents are desperate enough to slander Micheal.

So here are the issues:
Is Terri in a PVS?
Depends on who you ask, obviously. I think a court should appoint neutral doctors to make that determination. Does anyone know if this has already been done? If so, what was the outcome?

Who has the right to make medical decisions on Terri's behalf?
Her parents? Or her court appointed legal guardian, her husband? It seems to me that most of you, in any other case, would defend the rights of the husband. A decision to withdraw life support from a patient who has been in a vegetative state for 15 years and has astronomically small chances for recovery, as per your doctors, is not unreasonable.

Those who say that the husband is guilty of wrongdoing should stop beating around the bush, present the evidence, try and convict him. If this cannot be done, than his rights as husband/legal guardian should be respected.

I shudder when I think about what a mess it would be if my parents tried to override a decision medical or not of my wife, my designated life partner and next of kin, in the event I am incapacitated..

Agape4Robin
March 19th, 2005, 11:44 AM
:confused: "Who has the right to make medical decisions on Terri's behalf?....It seems to me that most of you, in any other case, would defend the rights of the husband."

So, Avatar.....let me ask you a question. You consider him to be a truly loving and caring husband? One who would love her so much as to defend her "right to die?"

:think:

"A decision to withdraw "life support" from, a patient who has been in a vegetative state for 15 years and has astronomically small chances for recovery, as per your doctors, is not unreasonable."

First of all, she is NOT on "life support", unless you consider that to have food and water administered by feeding tube is "life support", then most disabled persons would be a candidate for death. As a matter of fact, it has been documented that even those who considered suicide and carried out their wishes by jumping off a bridge, and lived to tell about it, have altered their opinions about death being an answer. Of those that were interviewed reported that about half way down, realized that their life was worth living! Life, in the face of death, was now a precious gift!

Second, this woman has been alive even though in this "vegetative state" for 15 years! Who are we or her "husband" to say that Terri has not adjusted to the limitations of her body? Simply because she has no effective communication skills? She is still Terri inside that body. Her soul and spirit remain even though her earthly vessel is severely limited, she has been shown to communicate as much as her damaged mind and body will allow!

Finally, would you consider your wife to have YOUR BEST INTERESTS at heart, if she were living with and having children with another man? A man that she calls, "fiancee?" You would want her to make life and death decisions FOR YOU? If you can say "yes", then you have to seriously doubt that your marriage vows are on any solid ground. Remeber those? "For better or worse, SICKNESS OR HEALTH, richer or poorer, UNTIL death do you part?" NOT BEFORE death.....no, my friend......this man is NO HUSBAND to Terri.....he abandoned her and now he would see her DEAD!

Without a WRITTEN declaration of refusal of life support, the court SHOULD recognize that conflicting VERBAL testimonies is hearsay and should not be admitted as evidence! If the court MUST make an error in judgement, it should err on the side of life, unless the person is considered terminally ill, which Terri is NOT.:nono:

You are an advocate of death......
:Clete: :Clete:

the Sibbie
March 19th, 2005, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by avatar382

What does it say about the institution of marriage if a woman's parents can override the descisions of her husband when she is incapacitated? Is this the legal precident we want to set? The precedence we want to set is that the value of innocent life stands above a marriage to a murderous husband.



:liberals: This is one of the issues too complex for liberals to figure out. :liberals:





:Commie:

elected4ever
March 19th, 2005, 12:06 PM
As far as I know all the involuntary actions such as breathing are functioning. She just does not have the motor capacity to eat and walk etc. This means that she is alive and not brain dead. Starving her to death is assisted suicide even if she has agreed. Assisted suicide is illegal and a crime according to Fl. Law. If she has not consented to being removed then the court is guilty of murder. Execution by starvation. What crime has she committed to justify the death sentence. Taking life just because it presents a hardship is not a reason to kill someone. If we allow this precedent to stand, where does this slipper slope take us? What right to life will anyone have if they are incapacitated and present an inconvenience of long term care? This is serious and we better wake up or any-one can be next if the care giver doesn't wont the inconvenience.

avatar382
March 19th, 2005, 12:43 PM
So, Avatar.....let me ask you a question. You consider him to be a truly loving and caring husband? One who would love her so much as to defend her "right to die?"

I don't know. I don't know the guy personally, and I personally don't consider either his testimony or the parent's testimony as both would be probably biased. Has any neutral party stepped forward to bring some insight into the husband's character?

It doesn't really matter much, though. Whether or not the guy is a evil bastard has no bearing on his rights as Terri's husband, and his right to make medical desicions on her behalf, unless he acted criminally, in which case his rights need to be revoked and given to the parents.


First of all, she is NOT on "life support", unless you consider that to have food and water administered by feeding tube is "life support", then most disabled persons would be a candidate for death.

I consider the feeding tube to be "life support" in this case, because it is an artificial means of sustaining the body. Is Terri capable of taking in food and water orally? If so, why not spoonfeed her? It seems to me that since she has no concious function, she is incapable of swallowing, and is thus fed and maintained artificially (life support). Even a newborn baby is capable of nutrition/hydration orally.


Second, this woman has been alive even though in this "vegetative state" for 15 years! Who are we or her "husband" to say that Terri has not adjusted to the limitations of her body? Simply because she has no effective communication skills? She is still Terri inside that body. Her soul and spirit remain even though her earthly vessel is severely limited, she has been shown to communicate as much as her damaged mind and body will allow!

If she is indeed in a Persistant Vegatative State (a precise medical term), then her higher brain function is gone. This means she is incapable of sentinence. This means she has no and is not capable of concious feeling or awareness. This means, she is literally just a body with no mind. She is alive only because her brain stem is intact, so involuntary body functions continue.

The longer someone is in a PVS, the bleaker the chances of recovery. If she is in a PVS, After 15 years, I suspect her chances are very near-zero.

The whole point is that if she is in a PVS, she cannot "adjust". She is not there inside the body. It's not just "limited communication skills". It means her personhood has died. What do you have left when given a normal person, and take away their memory, personality, concious thought, and self-awareness? Why do you think they call it a "Vegetative" state?


Finally, would you consider your wife to have YOUR BEST INTERESTS at heart, if she were living with and having children with another man? A man that she calls, "fiancee?" You would want her to make life and death decisions FOR YOU? If you can say "yes", then you have to seriously doubt that your marriage vows are on any solid ground. Remeber those? "For better or worse, SICKNESS OR HEALTH, richer or poorer, UNTIL death do you part?" NOT BEFORE death.....no, my friend......this man is NO HUSBAND to Terri.....he abandoned her and now he would see her DEAD!

No, in your example, I would not consider my wife to have my best interests at heart.

However, in this case, Terri collapsed in 1990. Her husband has been trying to get her tube disconnected since 1993. He started living with the other woman in 1995. It's possible that he has simply accepted the death of her personhood long ago, has moved on, and is simply trying to put her body to rest as well. His living with another woman is not necessarily a conflict of interest for that reason.


Without a WRITTEN declaration of refusal of life support, the court SHOULD recognize that conflicting VERBAL testimonies is hearsay and should not be admitted as evidence! If the court MUST make an error in judgement, it should err on the side of life, unless the person is considered terminally ill, which Terri is NOT.

I disagree. I feel that as her husband and legal guardian, he should have the right to make medical desisions on her behalf. If he is not fit as a guardian, then the courts should decide that. They already have ruled in that regard.


You are an advocate of death

No, I'm not. I would just like to see the next of kin rights between a husband and wife preserved, and I would like the government (Jeb, the Legislature, etc) to stop overstepping it's bounds in these deeply personal matters.

avatar382
March 19th, 2005, 12:51 PM
The precedence we want to set is that the value of innocent life stands above a marriage to a murderous husband.

Does an individual have the right to die, if they do not wish to be kept alive artificially?

Does a husband/wife have the legal right to make medical decisions for their spouse, including the descision to disconnect life support, should the spouse be incapacitated?

What value does a person's life have if that person has irrevocably lost all awareness, self-awareness, feeling, personality, and memory?

These are the questions at the heart of the case, and questions I think are not being answered.

Oh, and for the record, I am neither a "liberal" nor a "communist." If you wish to refer to me by my political leanings, you may call me a "libertarian".

avatar382
March 19th, 2005, 12:56 PM
As far as I know all the involuntary actions such as breathing are functioning. She just does not have the motor capacity to eat and walk etc. This means that she is alive and not brain dead. Starving her to death is assisted suicide even if she has agreed. Assisted suicide is illegal and a crime according to Fl. Law. If she has not consented to being removed then the court is guilty of murder. Execution by starvation. What crime has she committed to justify the death sentence. Taking life just because it presents a hardship is not a reason to kill someone. If we allow this precedent to stand, where does this slipper slope take us? What right to life will anyone have if they are incapacitated and present an inconvenience of long term care? This is serious and we better wake up or any-one can be next if the care giver doesn't wont the inconvenience.

Certainly, she is alive. And certainly, she is not completely brain dead. She has retained basic involuntary function. But, she has lost all cognitive function.

To me, it's not an issue of killing someone who has become an inconvience.

I believe the central issue here is twofold:
Does an individual have the right to die, if they do not wish to be kept alive artificially?
Does a husband/wife have the legal right to make medical decisions for their spouse, including the descision to disconnect life support, should the spouse be incapacitated?

Art Deco
March 19th, 2005, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

Follow the money, I always say...

I find it interesting that the woman's parents started a foundation to raise money to pay their legal bills. Those are legal bills that would not have occured if they were not trying to challenge the legality of their daughter's marriage in the first place... I find it interesting that you ignore the fact that an innocent women has been condemned to death by an evil judge and a callous and evil husband.

posted by Secular Humanist Zak:
The foundation was recently fined (February 8, 2005) by the state of Florida government for not filing the required legal papers to register it with the state. Quite a significant (and rather fundamental) mistake for a foundation that allegedly exists to handle her legal affairs, among other things...

... then of course there's the minor issue that the foundation is a for-profit entity, with any profits going to the Schindlers themselves... :greedy: Then of course the foundation may not have qualified for any other status or that a for profit foundation may afford them the greateast control of the funds to expedite their use in Terri's defense.

Posted by Secular Humanist "Zak":
After checking the foundation web site, so far as I can ascertain, the Schindlers are quick to point out how Schiavo's husband is spending his money, yet they have refused to divulge how much money they've raised through the foundation capitalizing on her condition.

As usual, the lawyers get rich and the legislators get publicity... all paid for by the gullible public. :nono: As usual a Secular Humanist will try to divert attention from the real story the callous and barbarous torture killing of a disabled young women by an evil Secular Humanist judge and his stooge the unfaithful and wicked husband.

Art Deco
March 19th, 2005, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by aikido7

Every and anytime anybody talks about what they would like done if they are paralyzed, incontinent, demented or suffering due to old age or an accident, why do they always say KEEP ME ALIVE AT ALL COSTS????

There has been little information on Schiavo's husband on this point.

Why would he even CLAIM his wife had ever said such a thing to him???? Because he might very well have been responsible for her condition, and having done so would want her dead and cremated ASAP to keep her silent forever.

Art Deco
March 19th, 2005, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by avatar382 I believe the central issue here is twofold:
Does an individual have the right to die, if they do not wish to be kept alive artificially?
Does a husband/wife have the legal right to make medical decisions for their spouse, including the descision to disconnect life support, should the spouse be incapacitated? Where is her wishes set down in writing and notarized? A statement by this adulterous husband would not cut judicial musterd if I was a judge. :nono:

avatar382
March 19th, 2005, 02:42 PM
Where is her wishes set down in writing and notarized? A statement by this adulterous husband would not cut judicial musterd if I was a judge.

Obviously, they were not.

But, adulterous or no, this man is her husband, next-of-kin, and legal guardian. On what basis should his word be completely discounted? Because he's moved on and found another woman during the 15 years since his wife collapsed and entered a vegetative state?

Agape4Robin
March 19th, 2005, 03:22 PM
:bang: Obviously this guy just doesn't get it!:loser:

quote: "On what basis should his word be completely discounted?"

Then this :dunce: goes on to answer his own question! He has moved on with his life!!!!:duh:

If he has done so, then morally he must let her move on with her own life, step aside and let her family care for her!:thumb:

:wave: TTFN

Zakath
March 19th, 2005, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by Art Deco

I find it interesting that you ignore the fact that an innocent women has been condemned to death by an evil judge and a callous and evil husband.AD, do you know why Mrs. Schiavo is in her present condition in the first place?

:think:

...But keeping the weight off was a struggle for Terri Schiavo, and years later — after her heart stopped briefly, cutting off oxygen to the brain — a malpractice case brought against a doctor on her behalf would reveal she had been trying to survive on liquids and was making herself throw up after meals. The Schiavos' lawyer said her 1990 collapse was caused by a potassium imbalance brought on by an eating disorder.

- Schiavo case highlights eating disorders (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-02-25-schiavo-eating-disorder_x.htm)


Her own self-destructive behavior caused heart failure which appears to be the major contributor to her current position of being severely brain damaged. To put it plainly - she did this to herself.

And now, just like any bleeding heart social liberal, you want to remove as many of the consequences of her behavior as possible and potentially extend her life for several decades...

Are you suggesting that society, and not the individual, support someone for decades who engaged in such ungodly behavior?

:think:

Zakath
March 19th, 2005, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by aikido7

Every and anytime anybody talks about what they would like done if they are paralyzed, incontinent, demented or suffering due to old age or an accident, why do they always say KEEP ME ALIVE AT ALL COSTS????

There has been little information on Schiavo's husband on this point.

Why would he even CLAIM his wife had ever said such a thing to him???? In this day and age, why wouldn't married partners discuss such things?

My wife and I have certainly discussed such things between us and both of us have living wills and limited DNR orders in the event we are incapacitated.

I would sincerely hope and expect my spouse or children to follow my desires in such a case, not those of some judge seeking his "15 minutes of fame" or some politician looking for votes in the next election.

Zakath
March 19th, 2005, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by Art Deco

Where is her wishes set down in writing and notarized? A statement by this adulterous husband would not cut judicial musterd if I was a judge. :nono: Perhaps your callous disregard of the law is why you are not suitable for the judicial bench. ;)

the Sibbie
March 19th, 2005, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by avatar382

Does an individual have the right to die, if they do not wish to be kept alive artificially?No, that's suicide. That's illegal.


Does a husband/wife have the legal right to make medical decisions for their spouse, including the descision to disconnect life support, should the spouse be incapacitated?No, unless they are actually brain-dead, and the rest of their body is being kept alive artifically. Being kept alive on a feeding tube does not qualify. And don't you think a loving husband or wife would want to try everything to rehibilitate their spouse? Terri has been denied any rehab because of her husband.


What value does a person's life have if that person has irrevocably lost all awareness, self-awareness, feeling, personality, and memory? Since when did you or the government have the right to eliminate a person based on their perceived worth (their worth to whom)? Very Nazi-like.


These are the questions at the heart of the case, and questions I think are not being answered.No they are not. Terri is not brain-dead. She breaths on her own, can move her arms, mouth, face, neck, she blinks, looks around, tries to speak and perhaps other stuff we haven't seen. She just can't feed herself, talk, and walk. According to your reasoning, a parent should have the right to kill their newborn infant.

From the videos we've seen Terri is just disabled. She may not be able to talk and walk like you, but she is aware of her surroundings. Her condition is similar to an infant's, elderly person's, or a person with severe Down's syndrome.


Oh, and for the record, I am neither a "liberal" nor a "communist." If you wish to refer to me by my political leanings, you may call me a "libertarian". Ok, left-winger. Libertarians are morally liberal.

Mr. Coffee
March 19th, 2005, 06:56 PM
AP: Congressional leaders have announced a compromise that would allow her case to be reviewed by federal courts that could restore her feeding tube.

Art Deco
March 20th, 2005, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

Perhaps your callous disregard of the law is why you are not suitable for the judicial bench. ;) Point of order. Perhaps my view of the law runs contrary to the Secular Humanist position which is: The law is what they say it is at any given moment. :think:

Agape4Robin
March 20th, 2005, 03:31 PM
Art Deco....Sibbie:darwinsm:
I love you guys!!!!!:chuckle:

Libertarian:liberals: :mock:

Art Deco
March 20th, 2005, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by ilyatur

AP: Congressional leaders have announced a compromise that would allow her case to be reviewed by federal courts that could restore her feeding tube.


Dems Block GOP Efforts In Schavio Case.

www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/20/132135.shtml

from the article:
WASHINGTON - House Republicans, seeing Congress as a last hope for brain-damaged Terri Schiavo, convened an extraordinary Palm Sunday session to pass legislation aimed at prolonging the Florida woman's life.


Democrats refused to allow the measure to go ahead with a vote, forcing Republicans to scramble to bring their members back to Washington.


Leaders of both parties agreed Saturday on legislation that they said would allow Schiavo's feeding tube, which was disconnected Friday afternoon, to be reinserted while federal courts review her case.

But when the House convened Sunday afternoon, Democrats made clear they would not let it pass on a voice vote, requiring the assembly of a quorum for a roll call vote.

With that, Republicans called a recess and said they planned to meet as early as one minute after midnight on Monday, if they get the needed quorum of 218. The Senate was ready to give its quick approval and President Bush was planning to return from his ranch in Crawford, Texas, to sign it.


What a despicable band of worthless moral wretches these anti-God Secular Humanist Democrats are..:madmad:

Art Deco
March 20th, 2005, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by the Sibbie Ok, left-winger. Libertarians are morally liberal. Sibbie, I suggest that the fatal flaw in Libertarianism is their neutral postion on moral issues. They are band of amoral individuals who much prefer the Secular Humanist, rather than the Judeo/Christian, World View. :think:

Agape4Robin
March 20th, 2005, 05:31 PM
Just got done watching the 6 o'clock news, and there was an interview with "husband" of Terri, by a local news team...channel 8 or NBC. Tried to find the sound byte on this, but can't ......any luck anyone?????:help:

Yorzhik
March 20th, 2005, 08:11 PM
I posted this in another spot, but I'm wondering if we can get some more comments on it.

Terri's alleged husband refused the money on altruistic reasons. But he's only altruistic when it comes to killing his wife. When it comes to NOT COMMITTING ADULTRY on her... well then, altruistic goes out the window.

Nineveh
March 20th, 2005, 08:17 PM
Day 2 :(

cattyfan
March 20th, 2005, 08:28 PM
I wonder how those poiliticians who are holding up the emergency measures would feel if they had been without food or water for two days...schmucks.

Anne
March 21st, 2005, 01:35 AM
Great news:bannana:

Bush signs bill to save Terri
House votes overwhelmingly to make Schiavo case federal
Posted: March 21, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

WASHINGTON – The House of Representatives this morning passed a bill that could save Terri Schiavo's life by sending it to a federal court for review to determine whether her feeding tube should be reinserted.

President Bush signed it into law moments later.
Bush signs bill to save Terri (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43406)

Mr Jack
March 21st, 2005, 05:25 AM
I found this page on the subject interesting:

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

Nineveh
March 21st, 2005, 07:22 AM
Day 3 :(

Yeah Anne!

but...

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said the federal district court in Florida, which is open 24 hours a day, had already been informed that a petition would be filed as soon as the president signs the measure - with the presumption a judge will order that the tube be replaced.

...

Even though the legislation would pave an avenue for federal jurisdiction in the legal case, there was no way to determine in advance how or when a judge would rule -- or even which judge would be assigned the case by lottery.

..maybe we should rename the democrats to "deathocrats".

avatar382
March 21st, 2005, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by Mr Jack

I found this page on the subject interesting:

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

Thanks for posting this.

I think everyone should read this page - it contains quotes from the lower courts' descisions and highlights the rationale why the courts have sided with Micheal. The sheer amount of misinformation being perpetuated in this case is staggering. Sadly, most people choose to side with their emotions instead of objectively weighing the evidence....

Here's a very relevant excerpt:


Why did Terri’s husband get to make the decision about whether she should live or die?

Michael Schiavo did not make the decision to discontinue life-prolonging measures for Terri.

As Terri's husband, Michael has been her guardian and her surrogate decision-maker. By 1998, though -- eight years after the trauma that produced Terri's situation -- Michael and Terri's parents disagreed over the proper course for her.

Rather than make the decision himself, Michael followed a procedure permitted by Florida courts by which a surrogate such as Michael can petition a court, asking the court to act as the ward's surrogate and determine what the ward would decide to do. Michael did this, and based on statements Terri made to him and others, he took the position that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures. The Schindlers took the position that Terri would continue life-prolonging measures. Under this procedure, the trial court becomes the surrogate decision-maker, and that is what happened in this case.

The trial court in this case held a trial on the dispute. Both sides were given opportunities to present their views and the evidence supporting those views. Afterwards, the trial court determined that, even applying the "clear and convincing evidence" standard -- the highest burden of proof used in civil cases -- the evidence showed that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures.

Nineveh
March 21st, 2005, 09:25 AM
From CNSNews (http://www.cnsnews.com/) this hour:


Update: Judge James Whittemore Presiding

(CNSNews.com) - U.S. District Judge James Whittemore reportedly plans to call the Schindler family's lawyers to his Tampa, Fla., courtroom at 3 o'clock on Monday, after he's had a chance to review the case that landed on his desk early Monday morning. Wire reports note that Judge Whittemore was nominated to the court in 1999 by President Bill Clinton. At mid-morning, the federal judge had not yet ruled on an emergency request to have Terri's feeding tube reconnected.

Yorzhik
March 21st, 2005, 03:17 PM
Well... it's 4 o'clock...

Mr. Coffee
March 21st, 2005, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by Yorzhik

Well... it's 4 o'clock... It's 5pm.. the judge says there will be no ruling now, but there's a chance there might be something in a couple hours.. or tomorrow.. no one really knows.

Yorzhik
March 21st, 2005, 04:28 PM
grrrr... I guess it doesn't bother him much that a woman is starving to death, literally, while he takes his sweet time.

The Berean
March 21st, 2005, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Day 3 :(

Yeah Anne!

but...


..maybe we should rename the democrats to "deathocrats".

How long can Terri last without water.? :cry: It's been three days now. Her body must be severely dehydrated by now. I hope the federal judge takes this into account!!! :madmad:

The Berean
March 21st, 2005, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by The Berean

How long can Terri last without water.? :cry: It's been three days now. Her body must be severely dehydrated by now. I hope the federal judge takes this into account!!! I'n not sure any person can last more than a week without water. :madmad:

Art Deco
March 22nd, 2005, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by The Berean

How long can Terri last without water.? :cry: It's been three days now. Her body must be severely dehydrated by now. I hope the federal judge takes this into account!!! :madmad:


www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43415

From the article:
How did we come to a point that we are arguing about denying food to a human being, about a culture of death rather than a culture of life? A review of developments in Nazi Germany might be enlightening. The Nazi atrocities were based on a philosophy that made the "quality of life" more important than the "sanctity of life."

The Nazis slipped into the holocaust by seven recognizable steps.

1) There was an acceptance of mercy killing to put people out of their misery.

2) When Germany suffered a severe economic crunch efforts were made to remove "useless" expenses from the budget. That led to the killing of the chronically ill with no hope of recovery (Terri Schiavo?).

3) Next came killing of the elderly who were without relatives and resources but were a burden to the state.

4) This was followed by the elimination of bums, beggars, gypsies and hopelessly poor people.

5) Then came the economy of eliminating people who were drawing welfare.

6) It was then the turn of the ideologically unwanted, political enemies of the state, "religious extremists," "disloyal" individuals who were holding the government back from providing every citizen a better quality of life.

7) Finally there came those who in the ideology of the Nazis were evolutionally unfit such as Jew and those who were not pure Aryans. Once the first step, acceptance of euthanasia was taken, all other steps followed logically. If this woman is allowed to die...we will have her blood on our hands...:help:

Granite
March 22nd, 2005, 07:42 AM
I can understand the slippery slope argument, but something like what happened in Germany won't happen here.

Sozo
March 22nd, 2005, 07:45 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

I can understand the slippery slope argument, but something like what happened in Germany won't happen here.

So then, what are supposed to do with all the liberals?

Art Deco
March 22nd, 2005, 07:51 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

I can understand the slippery slope argument, but something like what happened in Germany won't happen here. Because you refused to become a child of God, you have condemned yourself to be spiritually blind. You can't see that we are well advanced down the road to Nazi Germany here in America. Have you forgotten the 43 million killed in the womb via legal abortion? I would say wake up, but unfortunately you can't wake up. God has hardened your heart so you will not see. :(



Bumper Sticker: God...No Greater Friend...No Worst Enemy

Art Deco
March 22nd, 2005, 07:55 AM
Originally posted by Sozo

So then, what are supposed to do with all the liberals? May I suggest the Church throw out the "Blind Guides" that inhabit the pulpits across America and elevate to the pastorate men of courage and valor who will inform the people and insist they make their wishes known at the next general election. This is the only way the Christian voice will be heard in America in the public square. :angel:

Granite
March 22nd, 2005, 08:21 AM
Originally posted by Art Deco

Because you refused to become a child of God, you have condemned yourself to be spiritually blind. You can't see that we are well advanced down the road to Nazi Germany here in America. Have you forgotten the 43 million killed in the womb via legal abortion? I would say wake up, but unfortunately you can't wake up. God has hardened your heart so you will not see. :(



Bumper Sticker: God...No Greater Friend...No Worst Enemy

More of this blathering hot air nonsense from the crankshaft himself...

Analogies and comparisons to Nazi Germany have lost their effectiveness for a few reasons: one, they're overused; two, they're used by people with little understanding of the Third Reich.

Art, I've been arrested for protesting abortion clinics. Have you? One way or another, do not EVER imply or think I'm somehow callous to the murder of the unborn.

I took issue with the comparison to Nazi Germany. It's simply not an accurate analogy. We don't have a comparable hated group such as Jews, with a bedrock of hatred spanning hundreds of years. We don't live in a one-party police state. We're not nationalistic xenophobes (well, you may be; most Americans aren't). We're not trying to conquer a continent. In any event, using abortion as a slippery-slope argument comparing us to the Nazis misses an important point: when it came to everyone but the Jews, the Nazis were intensely pro-life.

Mr Jack
March 22nd, 2005, 08:28 AM
An interesting piece from the Chicago Tribune; not directly related to Terri but right to die in general: Your own private Schiavo (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-brotman-blog,1,6711459.column?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true)

Nineveh
March 22nd, 2005, 08:40 AM
Day 4 :(

Sozo
March 22nd, 2005, 08:52 AM
If they are going to kill Terri just because it is perceived that she is brain dead, does this mean that godrulz could be next?

Zakath
March 22nd, 2005, 09:07 AM
It seems as if judicial activism, allegedly greatly feared by conservatives', has been dealt a blow by the federal judge who refused to force a feeding tube to be placed in Terry Schiavo.

Now the "keep Terry living" folks are appealing...

I wonder how many more judges will have to say "no way" before they get the point...

Sozo
March 22nd, 2005, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by Zakath
I wonder how many more judges will have to say "no way" before they get the point...

A similar thought comes to mind when there are such a large group of people calling you an idiot.

Poly
March 22nd, 2005, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

It seems as if judicial activism, allegedly greatly feared by conservatives', has been dealt a blow by the federal judge who refused to force a feeding tube to be placed in Terry Schiavo.

Now the "keep Terry living" folks are appealing...

I wonder how many more judges will have to say "no way" before they get the point...

Since when did having a greater number of evil people doing evil things make evil not evil anymore?

Nineveh
March 22nd, 2005, 09:12 AM
What point?

That it's ok to murder an handicapped person by starving them to death?

How many?

All of them. And I still won't buy it. Just like I still don't buy it's ok to murder people based on age.

Granite
March 22nd, 2005, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

It seems as if judicial activism, allegedly greatly feared by conservatives', has been dealt a blow by the federal judge who refused to force a feeding tube to be placed in Terry Schiavo.

Now the "keep Terry living" folks are appealing...

I wonder how many more judges will have to say "no way" before they get the point...

Conservatives are using the same tactics they decry when liberals turn the tables on them. Fighting dirty is perfectly acceptable as long as it's your guys getting mucky.

Zakath
March 22nd, 2005, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

What point?The point is that some of you are quite willing to let judges be "activists" when you the judge agrees with your opinion...

Thus, it seems that it's not the principle of judicial activism that people like you and Deco object to, it's the specific situation to which it is applied.

Sounds a lot like what is called situational ethics. :think:

Nineveh
March 22nd, 2005, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

The point is that some of you are quite willing to let judges be "activists" when you the judge agrees with your opinion...

Thus, it seems that it's not the principle of judicial activism that people like you and Deco object to, it's the specific situation to which it is applied.

Sounds a lot like what is called situational ethics. :think:

Read (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=700677#post700677) what Judge Bork has to say about it.

Zakath
March 22nd, 2005, 11:31 AM
Thanks for sharing Mr. Bork's opinion. I will give it the consideration due any currently unemployed judge who is a fellow at a neo-con think tank... :)

I'm more interested in what you think about the issue, not Judge Bork.

The Berean
March 22nd, 2005, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Day 4 :(

:madmad:

Poor Terri will be dead by early next week...:madmad:

Nineveh
March 22nd, 2005, 12:39 PM
It's not my opinion that Congress was out of bounds in what they did.

Zakath
March 22nd, 2005, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

It's not my opinion that Congress was out of bounds in what they did. So you approve of the use of "quickie bills", passed outside of regular legislative sessions, to change venue of active court cases from state courts to federal courts?

:think:

Nineveh
March 22nd, 2005, 01:44 PM
Did you bother to read Bork's comments?

PS...

Judicial activism would be like.... oh... let's say.... declaring the murder of the unborn legal. Um... striking down sodomy laws.... that sort of thing.

Zakath
March 22nd, 2005, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Did you bother to read Bork's comments?Yes. Did you actually read mine?
:think:

Judicial activism would be like.... oh... let's say.... declaring the murder of the unborn legal. Um... striking down sodomy laws.... that sort of thing. So, as I mentioned, only things you disagree with are judicial acitivism.

You're sounding a bit like Benjamin Franklin's comment about revolution versus rebellion...

Nineveh
March 22nd, 2005, 02:05 PM
The Judiciary isn't supposed to make laws. That's Congress' job.

Zakath
March 22nd, 2005, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

The Judiciary isn't supposed to make laws. That's Congress' job. Agreed. :thumb:

And the legislative branch isn't supposed to get involved in current legal proceedings. That's the judiciary's job.

Seems like we've got what contractors call "scope creep"... :think:

Nineveh
March 22nd, 2005, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

And the legislative branch isn't supposed to get involved in current legal proceedings. That's the judiciary's job.

"They (the Congress and the president) are not overstepping their legal bounds, they have a right to confer jurisdiction on a court," Bork said,...

"President Bush signed the legislation early Monday morning that granted Terri Schiavo's parents the ability to sue in federal court ..."

But no worries... the deathocrat appointed judge ruled in favor of her murder.

Zakath
March 22nd, 2005, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

"They (the Congress and the president) are not overstepping their legal bounds, they have a right to confer jurisdiction on a court," Bork said,...

"President Bush signed the legislation early Monday morning that granted Terri Schiavo's parents the ability to sue in federal court ..."

But no worries... the deathocrat appointed judge ruled in favor of her murder.

Shows how effective changing venue sometimes is, right? :think:

But don't worry, maybe your deity will miraculously heal her so she can feed herself. :D

Wanna bet $100 that she dies before that happens?

Nineveh
March 22nd, 2005, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

Shows how effective changing venue sometimes is, right? :think:

Shows congress wasn't out of bounds.


But don't worry, maybe your deity will miraculously heal her so she can feed herself. :D

Why try laying her starvation death at God's feet? Michael made vows to her. None of which he kept. Is that God's fault too?


Wanna bet $100 that she dies before that happens?

No, I'm not going to bet that her husband will starve her to death. People are held accountable for what people do, like it or not.

Besides, if God jumped in everytime a human commited an act of evil, you'd gripe about not having free will.

Zakath
March 22nd, 2005, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Shows congress wasn't out of bounds.And neither was the court.

Your point????


Why try laying her starvation death at God's feet? I'm not. What I'm laying at your deity's feet (if he actually has feet), is whether or not he answers the diligent prayers of his followers and heals her.

If he cares so much about keeping her alive, it's not unreasonable to think that an entity that constructed the quantum cosmic structure underlying the universe could re-arrange a few neural connections so her brain will function properly.


Michael made vows to her. None of which he kept. Is that God's fault too?People violate their marriage vows every day. So what does that have to do with a no-show by YHWH?


Besides, if God jumped in everytime a human commited an act of evil, you'd gripe about not having free will. Hardly. If there was no free will, I couldn't gripe. ;)

Nineveh
March 22nd, 2005, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

And neither was the court.

Your point????

I didn't claim the court was acting outside it's bounds. Your point?


I'm not. What I'm laying at your deity's feet (if he actually has feet), is whether or not he answers the diligent prayers of his followers and heals her.

The feet of my God is run through with holes where humans nailed Him to a cross. We have a track record for being cruel to each other.

When did you start thinking Benny Hinn was telling the truth about miracle healing? Was it before or after you left tending His flock?


If he cares so much about keeping her alive, it's not unreasonable to think that an entity that constructed the quantum cosmic structure underlying the universe to re-arrange a few neural connects so her brain will function properly.

You mean it wouldn't be just as easy for michael to let someone help her eat?


People violate their marriage vows every day. So what does that have to do with a no-show by YHWH?

Michael made a promise to care for his wife. Why is God responsible for his hard evil heart?


Hardly. If there was no free will, I couldn't gripe. ;)

You'd manage, I'm sure :)

Zakath
March 22nd, 2005, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

I didn't claim the court was acting outside it's bounds. Your point?I claimed that Congress was interfering in what was essentially a states rights issue. It's a Federalism vs. statism issue.


The feet of my God is run through with holes where humans nailed Him to a cross. Yes, tortured to death at the alleged insistence of his "loving" father. I'm familiar with the story. It's getting close to the time of year when many of you Christians celebrate the divinely ordained butchery.


We have a track record for being cruel to each other.And your deity has a track record for either ignoring it or even condoning it.


When did you start thinking Benny Hinn was telling the truth about miracle healing? Was it before or after you left tending His flock?:confused:
Slipping into ad hominem and red herring arguments already, eh? :chuckle:

Millions of Christians who wouldn't give Hinn the time of day believe that their deity heals humans... Isuppose you do not believe it is possible for your deity to heal Terry Schaivo?


You mean it wouldn't be just as easy for michael to let someone help her eat?Well, there is that pesky free will thing... you do recall how she got there in the first place, SHE HAS AN EATING DISORDER! She starved herself into a metabolic imbalance which triggered cardiac arrest and the accompanying anoxia caused the brain damage. It would have be "easy" for him to have let her die when he found her unconscious. But he didn't. If I have the story correct, he called an ambulance.


Michael made a promise to care for his wife. Why is God responsible for his hard evil heart?Can you say "Pharaoh and Moses"?

aikido7
March 22nd, 2005, 03:40 PM
ETHICS?
Performing a medical proceedure against a person's will (or that of the patient's legal respresentative) is unethical. And illegal.

Anyone who is responsible for re-inserting a feeding tube is guilty of assault and should be sanctioned.

SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE?
Traditionally, a wife is given away to her husband in the act of marriage. The woman leaves her family and home to become one with her husband.

At that point, her family can have opinions, but no legal say in her life or death anymore.

POLITICS?
A GOP talking points memo recently made public says the Terri Shiavo case is a great poltical opportunity for Bush to garner more support from conservative Christians.

Bush sat in Crawford, Texas after reading a memo that bin Laden was determined to attack America. Bush did nothing. To appeal to his political base, he flies immediately to Washington to sign some hastily put-together legislation in a goullish grandstand.

HIPOCRISY?
As governor, George Bush signed into law a provision that authorized a hospital to deny life support for a young boy because his family was too indigent to pay hospital costs.

FAIRNESS?
If other family members have an ethical dilemma concerning end-of-life issues, do they also have a right for the U.S. Congress to get involved as well?

CONSISTENCY?
The life of the unborn is sacred and apparently so is Terri Shaivo's--such as those lives are. Why not extend that to ALL life--even the lives of soldiers and civillians in Iraq?

CYNICISM?
Is part of Tom Delay's strategy to take the focus off of his own ethical can of worms?

COMMON SENSE
Give me a break! Nearly 80 per cent of Americans agree that they would not want to be kept alive in Shaivo's condition.

Mr. Coffee
March 22nd, 2005, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by aikido7
A GOP talking points memo recently made public says the Terri Shiavo case is a great poltical opportunity for Bush to garner more support from conservative Christians. Let's try an analogy. A guy owns a business and he really believes that his product or service benefits others, and that's why he sells it. So it's not all about money--but he has to make money to stay in business. Votes are currency in politics, and that's why politicians watch the polls. It doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't sincere about what they say. Bush has been promoting the Culture of Life for a good while now.

Anne
March 22nd, 2005, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by Zakath
Hardly. If there was no free will, I couldn't gripe. ;) Now that would be HEAVEN, Zakath not griping about something.:chuckle:

BChristianK
March 22nd, 2005, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by aikido7

My response:

ETHICS?
Starving someone to death is wrong. You can't do it to a dog without incurring civil liability. And idly standing by while someone is starved to death is deplorable. Supporting it evil.

SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE?
Traditionally, a husband doesn't abandon his wife in her time of need, start shagging some other bimbo and then fight tooth and nail to ensure that his wife be starved to death.


POLITICS?
Anyone who thinks that starving a person to death is good politics is an idiot.


Bush sat in Crawford, Texas after reading a memo that bin Laden was determined to attack America. Bush did nothing. To appeal to his political base, he flies immediately to Washington to sign some hastily put-together legislation in a goullish grandstand.

Apparantly, the left can't get their seething eyes off of Bush long enough to realize that a person is starving to death.


HIPOCRISY?
You'll start protesting the minute a person sticks a pair of BVD's on the head of a terrorist and deprive them of sleep, calling it torture, but don't consider the intentional deprivation of food and water from an innocent woman anything to be concerned about?


Now that's hypocrisy.


FAIRNESS?
I think Michael Shaivo should be starved and dehydrated to death right along side his wife, I think that's fair.

CONSISTENCY?
See hypocrisy above...

CYNICISM?
Judge Greer is evil. Oh wait, that's not Cynicism, its realism.

COMMON SENSE
Give me a break! 100% of the population in America would rather not be executed by court order and especially not through starvation and dehydration.

Nineveh
March 22nd, 2005, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

I claimed that Congress was interfering in what was essentially a states rights issue. It's a Federalism vs. statism issue.

Apparently they can do what they did.


Yes, tortured to death at the alleged insistence of his "loving" father. I'm familiar with the story. It's getting close to the time of year when many of you Christians celebrate the divinely ordained butchery.

Funny, I don't recall the Father being there nailing Him to a cross. I don't think the Father was in the crowd chanting "Crucify Him!". That was us.


And your deity has a track record for either ignoring it or even condoning it.

Ignoring or condoning humans being human...

Sounds like God just can't win with you can He?


:confused:
Slipping into ad hominem and red herring arguments already, eh? :chuckle:

You are the one claiming God should do a miracle... that sounds like Benny Hinn. So when did you start believing Benny Hinn?


Millions of Christians who wouldn't give Hinn the time of day believe that their deity heals humans... Isuppose you do not believe it is possible for your deity to heal Terry Schaivo?

He has the Power. But He didn't make the promise He would. Besides, Michael is the one holding Terri's life in his hands, and he wants her to die.


Well, there is that pesky free will thing... you do recall how she got there in the first place, SHE HAS AN EATING DISORDER! She starved herself into a metabolic imbalance which triggered cardiac arrest and the accompanying anoxia caused the brain damage. It would have be "easy" for him to have let her die when he found her unconscious. But he didn't. If I have the story correct, he called an ambulance.

After he was told to by her dad, who he called first. But anyway, why is it God's fault michael is trying to starve her to death?


Can you say "Pharaoh and Moses"?

Do we really have to go over who hardened Pharaoh's heart again.

Isn't any one ever responsible for anything Zakath?

Art Deco
March 22nd, 2005, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by granite1010 In any event, using abortion as a slippery-slope argument comparing us to the Nazis misses an important point: when it came to everyone but the Jews, the Nazis were intensely pro-life. :mock:Nazis were intensley pro-life. Please, that dog won't hunt...:nono:.. Check post #97 for details 1 through 7.:think:

Zakath
March 23rd, 2005, 07:51 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Apparently they can do what they did.Yup. Ever since the 1860's... and, in this case, particularly easily when the President's brother is governor of the state in question. ;)


Funny, I don't recall the Father being there nailing Him to a cross.Oh, so you don't believe that the death by torture of Jesus of Nazareth was necessary to fulfill some requirement of your deity?


I don't think the Father was in the crowd chanting "Crucify Him!". That was us.Not me. I wasn't born yet.


Ignoring or condoning humans being human...

Sounds like God just can't win with you can He?But didn't he "make" humans that way????


You are the one claiming God should do a miracle... that sounds like Benny Hinn.Or Pat Robertson, or Oral Roberts, or any one of tens of thousands of neo-pentecostals across America. It has nothing to do with Reverend Hinn and his shennanigans.


He has the Power. So you say, but it's a very weak argument when such power is never demonstrated except "long, long ago, in a land far, far away."


But He didn't make the promise He would.Never claimed he did. I don't even believe "he" really exists, as his lack of intervention in cases that his followers assure me that he's vitally interested in, seems to support.


Besides, Michael is the one holding Terri's life in his hands, and he wants her to die.Oddly enough I thought your deity holds all life in his hands.:think:


After he was told to by her dad, who he called first. But anyway, why is it God's fault michael is trying to starve her to death?Perhaps for the same reason your Bible claims that YHWH caused Pharaoh to act in a certain fashion...


Isn't any one ever responsible for anything Zakath? Isn't your deity ever responsible for anything, Nineveh? Or do you actually believe that he's just an "absentee landlord"?

It appears that I believe, unlike you, that everyone, including deities, are responsible for things over which they have control...

aikido7
March 23rd, 2005, 08:11 AM
This is life. And death is a part of life.

If you don't work with the sick and dying--or have not met death face-to-face on ITS own terms and not your own--it is nearly impossible to see your way clear on this brouhaha.

Too much of America has been captured by baby souls who are using other human beings to frantically work out their own issues.

Granite
March 23rd, 2005, 08:21 AM
Originally posted by Art Deco

:mock:Nazis were intensley pro-life. Please, that dog won't hunt...:nono:.. Check post #97 for details 1 through 7.:think:

Art, I said that with the exceptions of Jews (and undesirable races), the Nazis were...and, demonstrably, that's true. Germans were encouraged to raise big, sturdy, Aryan broods. The Hitler Youth and Hitler Maidens got into trouble regularly with conceiving children out of wedlock; this was tolerated because the infants were, after all, good German babies.

Poly
March 23rd, 2005, 08:22 AM
Originally posted by aikido7

--or have not met death face-to-face on ITS own terms and not your own--
"It's own terms" is the issue. Schiavo seems to think it should be on his own terms.

aikido7
March 23rd, 2005, 08:26 AM
Schiavo seems to think it should be on his own terms.

So he's either trying to carry out his wife's request or he is lying. In hospitals and in hospice care, people do the former every day.

A flower closes up and wilts--even after it has been watered....
Imagine trying to straigten out those petals again and press them out flat again. And again. And again.

Poly
March 23rd, 2005, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by aikido7

So he's either trying to carry out his wife's request or he is lying. In hospitals and in hospice care, people do the former every day.

Well, there you have it folks. People do the former every day. That proves Schiavo's telling the truth. :freak:

Nineveh
March 23rd, 2005, 08:55 AM
Day 5 :(

Zakath
March 23rd, 2005, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by Anne

Now that would be HEAVEN, Zakath not griping about something.:chuckle: But if I stopped, who would Nineveh and Deco have to argue with?

;)

Zakath
March 23rd, 2005, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Day 5 :( Did your deity heal her yet? Or did I read that the "forces of God" lost yet another federal court appeal?

:rolleyes:

avatar382
March 23rd, 2005, 09:06 AM
I hear that 2 out of the 3 appeals court judges were appointed by Reagan and the court as a whole is considered conservative?

Maybe it's possbile that the Congress and the President acted the way they did because they don't have to actually make a descision, they just want to look like they did something for political reasons, whereas the impressive stack of courts who have ruled so far actually rendered a descision on the merits of the case?

Granite
March 23rd, 2005, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by avatar382

I hear that 2 out of the 3 appeals court judges were appointed by Reagan and the court as a whole is considered conservative?

Maybe it's possbile that the Congress and the President acted the way they did because they don't have to actually make a descision, they just want to look like they did something for political reasons, whereas the impressive stack of courts who have ruled so far actually rendered a descision on the merits of the case?

It looks real good for a congressman to get behind the podium and bloviate. It also signifies nothing; these guys are throwing sops to their constituents. It's nothing but grotesque grandstanding, as far as I'm concerned.

drbrumley
March 23rd, 2005, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

Did your deity heal her yet? Or did I read that the "forces of God" lost yet another federal court appeal?

:rolleyes: :zakath:

Nineveh
March 23rd, 2005, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by Zakath
Oh, so you don't believe that the death by torture of Jesus of Nazareth was necessary to fulfill some requirement of your deity?

He is my Diety:) According to Him, He willingly them sacrifice Him. I guess it's all in who ya trust.


Not me. I wasn't born yet.

Saul prolly thought about the same thing until he was on the road to Damascus...


But didn't he "make" humans that way????

"So God created man...God saw all that he had made, and it was very good." Doesn't appear that way... wonder what happened. Did you ever give a sermon on this topic?


Or Pat Robertson, or Oral Roberts, or any one of tens of thousands of neo-pentecostals across America. It has nothing to do with Reverend Hinn and his shennanigans.

Ok, so when did you start believing "Pat Robertson, or Oral Roberts, or any one of tens of thousands of neo-pentecostals across America."?


So you say, but it's a very weak argument when such power is never demonstrated except "long, long ago, in a land far, far away."

Like you would believe eyewitness accounts from yesterday.


Never claimed he did. I don't even believe "he" really exists, as his lack of intervention in cases that his followers assure me that he's vitally interested in, seems to support.

Well, here again, God can't win with you. Even if He doesn't promise something, He's still guilty of not doing it. Perhaps you shouldn't put so much faith in men?


Oddly enough I thought your deity holds all life in his hands.:think:

Why do you keep trying to take the focus off the murderer and lay the balme for murder at God's feet?


Perhaps for the same reason your Bible claims that YHWH caused Pharaoh to act in a certain fashion...

Think we could go through this again in less than 6 pages?


Isn't your deity ever responsible for anything, Nineveh? Or do you actually believe that he's just an "absentee landlord"?

He is responsible for creating everything, and saving us from the punishment for the evil we insist on doing. The rest is up to us. He gave us life to live. What we do usually depends on what we believe. Maybe you need a nanny, not a deity?


It appears that I believe, unlike you, that everyone, including deities, are responsible for things over which they have control...

Except Michael apparently.

Nineveh
March 23rd, 2005, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

Did your deity heal her yet? Or did I read that the "forces of God" lost yet another federal court appeal?

:rolleyes:

Real life: No, Michael hasn't had any compassion on his wife yet.

Granite
March 23rd, 2005, 09:13 AM
One would think that the Christians around here would like a devout Catholic such as Terri to be put of her misery and suffering and in the arms of Jesus.

(Unless, of course, you don't think Catholics are "real" Christians.)

Nineveh
March 23rd, 2005, 09:17 AM
The Vatican is asking michael to have pity on his wife and feed her. Recent news is that the Vatican is against the death penalty. I guess they see what michael is doing to Terri as just that.

I don't know any Christians who support murder though....

Granite
March 23rd, 2005, 09:23 AM
I would imagine the Vatican sees it as euthanasia, strictly speaking.

Zakath
March 23rd, 2005, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Real life: No, Michael hasn't had any compassion on his wife yet. Translation:

Real life: Nineveh's god is a "no-show", again.

drbrumley
March 23rd, 2005, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

Translation:

Real life: Nineveh's god is a "no-show", again. :zakath:

Granite
March 23rd, 2005, 09:32 AM
Of course we're talking about a loving and compassionate deity so caring for a devout Catholic he allowed her to a) have a heart attack in her prime, b) caused her massive brain damage, and c) has so far put her at the mercy of courts unsympathetic to the cause of her parents.

Is Terri a sacrificial lamb or just the victim of some real, real bad luck?

drbrumley
March 23rd, 2005, 09:33 AM
What heart attack? You being misled again Granite?

On Fire
March 23rd, 2005, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

Of course we're talking about a loving and compassionate deity so caring for a devout Catholic he allowed her to a) have a heart attack in her prime, b) caused her massive brain damage, and c) has so far put her at the mercy of courts unsympathetic to the cause of her parents.

Is Terri a sacrificial lamb or just the victim of some real, real bad luck?

You musta slept a lot in church.

Poly
March 23rd, 2005, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

Translation:

Real life: Nineveh's god is a "no-show", again.

Zakath, you're attitude of "I'm mad at God cause He didn't/doesn't respond like I think He should so I'll show Him and make Him wish He had by turning on Him and talking all kinds of trash about Him from now on" is soooooooo tiresome.

Zakath
March 23rd, 2005, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

He is my Diety:) According to Him, He willingly them sacrifice Him. I guess it's all in who ya trust."He willingly them sacrifice him." :confused: Is there a missing verb in that sentence that would allow it to make sense?


Saul prolly thought about the same thing until he was on the road to Damascus...Oh, you mean when he had the seizure and "saw god"?


"So God created man...God saw all that he had made, and it was very good." Doesn't appear that way... wonder what happened...He is responsible for creating everything, and saving us from the punishment for the evil we insist on doing. The rest is up to us. He gave us life to live. What we do usually depends on what we believe.So, after Adam, all humans are "created" evil? Thus your deity is responsible, after all...


Ok, so when did you start believing "Pat Robertson, or Oral Roberts, or any one of tens of thousands of neo-pentecostals across America."?I was a neo-pentecostal. I attended conferences and sat on panels with Oral Roberts. :rolleyes:


Like you would believe eyewitness accounts from yesterday.Depends mostly on the eyewitness...



Well, here again, God can't win with you. Even if He doesn't promise something, He's still guilty of not doing it. You were the one that claimed he's responsible, not me.



Why do you keep trying to take the focus off the murderer and lay the balme for murder at God's feet?Because your deity is a genocidal murderer, by most human definitions.

Zakath
March 23rd, 2005, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by Poly

Zakath, you're attitude of "I'm mad at God cause He didn't/doesn't respond like I think He should so I'll show Him and make Him wish He had by turning on Him and talking all kinds of trash about Him from now on" is soooooooo tiresome. Your continuing misunderstanding of the fact that because I disbelive in someone's religious fantasies does not translate into being "mad at" their version of deity is tiresome, as well.

:rolleyes:

I am no more "mad at" Nineveh's deity than I am at any other fictional construct, like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

On Fire
March 23rd, 2005, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by Zakath
Oh, you mean when he had the seizure and "saw god"?
Wow! You were there? I knew you were old.....


So, after Adam, all humans are "created" evil? Thus your deity is responsible, after all... Playing dumb again. You're getting good at it.....maybe you're not playing.

Poly
March 23rd, 2005, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

Your continuing misunderstanding of the fact that because I disbelive in someone's religious fantasies does not translate into being "mad at" their version of deity is tiresome, as well.

:rolleyes:

I am no more "mad at" Nineveh's deity than I am at any other fictional construct, like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that Zakath.


Originally posted by Zakath

It appears that I believe, unlike you, that everyone, including deities, are responsible for things over which they have control...

Nope, no resentment towards God there.

Zakath
March 23rd, 2005, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by On Fire

Wow! You were there? I knew you were old.....Actually I read the description in your bible... ;)



Playing dumb again. You're getting good at it.....maybe you're not playing. Sorry, am I speaking over your head again, Smokey?

Zakath
March 23rd, 2005, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by Poly

Yeah, keep telling yourself that Zakath.Ahh, so now Poly's a telepath?! :kookoo:


Nope, no resentment towards God there. You don't believe your deity is responsible for anything but "good", do you?!

Nineveh
March 23rd, 2005, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

"He willingly them sacrifice him." :confused: Is there a missing verb in that sentence that would allow it to make sense?

Sorry, for being a preacher you can't even figure out a simple typing mistake? This is getting borish and pathetic.


Oh, you mean when he had the seizure and "saw god"?

I missed that part in the book of Zakath.


So, after Adam, all humans are "created" evil? Thus your deity is responsible, after all...

Yeah, He forced them to eat from the Tree.... Odd sermons you must have given.


I was a neo-pentecostal. I attended conferences and sat on panels with Oral Roberts. :rolleyes:

Sorry.


Depends mostly on the eyewitness...

You don't believe them from Scripture, I'm not surprised you don't believe the ones speaking out for Terri either.


You were the one that claimed he's responsible, not me.

Right, Michael is responsable for Terri's murder.


Because your deity is a genocidal murderer, by most human definitions.

And humans are never in error along with never being responsible.

Nineveh
March 23rd, 2005, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by Poly

Zakath, you're attitude of "I'm mad at God cause He didn't/doesn't respond like I think He should so I'll show Him and make Him wish He had by turning on Him and talking all kinds of trash about Him from now on" is soooooooo tiresome.

Amen!

Maybe he's just miffed God chose Paul instead of him.

Maybe I have as much weight as Pat Robertson...

So I'll spread the "gospel" the deity zakath promised to step in to save Terri.

On Fire
March 23rd, 2005, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

Actually I read the description in your bible... ;) Does the State of West Virginny know about your medical practice?



Sorry, am I speaking over your head again, Smokey? No, I think it's gibberish you're speaking again, Old Fart.

On Fire
March 23rd, 2005, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

Ahh, so now Poly's a telepath?! So!?!? You claim to be an M.D.



You don't believe your deity is responsible for anything but "good", do you?! Nothing but.

patsfan
March 23rd, 2005, 09:59 AM
Okay, I’ve read through the post, and aside from a few, a majority of you sound like children.
When it comes right do to it, this whole situation, while tragic, doesn’t affect us in any way. Sure, it’s terrible that this has happened to Terri, it’s terrible that her husband wants her to die, what amounts to a slow painful death. All of us have to die at some point in time, maybe this is just the time that God has planned out for her to die. There’s a novel idea.
Roughly six teen hundred people die every minuet. That ranges from one abortion every twenty seconds of every day, to the nine to ten kids from six teen to nine teen that die every day in car accidents. This happens to be one with a face that we can see.
I see some very intelligent people who are wasting their time going back forth over this and calling each other names, when we could be talking about the ethnic cleansing that happens across the world all the time. We could be discussing the abortion issue. And I know some of you would liken this whole thing to an “adult sized abortion.” We could be discussing the persecution of your Christian brothers in the Sudan and Asia. We could be discussing how to better help the missionary Peter Hammond and his ministry, while I may not be a Christian is still find this a worthy cause.
I know that you must think I’m just a very evil man from wanting to focus on something with some relevance, but you know, when it comes down to it we only know a few things for sure:

We know what Terri’s friends thing she would want.

We know what Terri’s parents think she would want.

We know what Terri’s husband thinks she wants.

But we will never know for sure what Terri wants. And until we get a physic in there we never will really know for sure. There in lies the problem.

I know this post is going to garner quite a few interesting responses. Bring it on.

Nineveh
March 23rd, 2005, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by patsfan

maybe this is just the time that God has planned out for her to die. There’s a novel idea.

God isn't murdering the woman, michael is, No, it's not a "novel" idea, it's ignorant.

I'm sorry it takes you so many words to say, "I stand for the murder of the handicapped."

patsfan
March 23rd, 2005, 10:06 AM
I really dont, i know and am friends with several handicapped people, one of my best friends little brother is a Chernoble baby and i help with him on a regular.

The question is did God preordain this to happen, and if so why question what God wanted to happen?

A mans heart is like a river that God himself direct, a paraphrase from the psalms.

Nineveh
March 23rd, 2005, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by patsfan

I really dont

Looks like you are:


The question is...

There is no question who is murdering Terri.


did God preordain this to happen

No.


and if...

I've noticed bad theology relies heavily on the word "if".


A mans heart is like a river that God himself direct, a paraphrase from the psalms.

Michael is being directed by God to murder Terri. : shakes head sadly : You lay the blame for Terri's murder at God's feet just like the apostate zakath.

patsfan
March 23rd, 2005, 10:18 AM
lemme ask you a question, i just wanna clear some thing up, in all seriousness:

do you believe your God, preordained every thing in this world to happen?

The question again, do you Nineveh, believe in predestination?

Nineveh
March 23rd, 2005, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by patsfan

do you believe your God, preordained every thing in this world to happen?

No.

On Fire
March 23rd, 2005, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by patsfan

lemme ask you a question, i just wanna clear some thing up, in all seriousness:

do you believe your God, preordained every thing in this world to happen?

The question again, do you Nineveh, believe in predestination?

:freak: :kookoo: :eek: :freak: :kookoo: :eek: :freak: :kookoo: :eek:

patsfan
March 23rd, 2005, 10:27 AM
Thank you for answering me directly. It is much appreciated. That clears up quite a few things.

Is it possible though that God is using Mike, who yes i will agree is not a good man on any level, christian or not, to do what he wants him to do and that is end Terri's life.

I do assume that you believe God is infinate and can controll every thing, so is it a possiblity that he is using this man for his own means?

Nineveh
March 23rd, 2005, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by patsfan

Is it possible though that God is using Mike, who yes i will agree is not a good man on any level, christian or not, to do what he wants him to do and that is end Terri's life.

No.


I do assume that you believe God is infinate and can controll every thing, so is it a possiblity that he is using this man for his own means?

No.

Now, a question for you:

Is your god evil or holy?

patsfan
March 23rd, 2005, 10:44 AM
Good question. There can never be one side to a creature creator. As we know from reading the Old Testament, your God, who I still show respect, can be both very vengeful and very benevolent at the same time. One minuet he is cursing the Israelites, and then he is welcoming them back into the fold.

A true deity is not just holy or evil; it is a yin and yang, a perfect mix of good and evil. Because you can never have evil with out good and the reverse applies.

So, what I have to say is that what I believe in is my family. I worship and am thankful for what I can directly see and have in front of me. My family can be both good and “evil”, if you can count the reaming out from my caring father and the banter of a younger brother evil.

Hope that answers the question if not, I’m sure I’ll hear from you

On Fire
March 23rd, 2005, 10:52 AM
Are the men in white coats on duty today?

Nineveh
March 23rd, 2005, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by patsfan
your God, who I still show respect

Doesn't look that way to me.


...A true deity is not just holy or evil; it is a yin and yang, a perfect mix of good and evil...

Thank you for exposing you aren't a Christian. So every time you assume to speak for God, you are merely speaking for yourself. You really do sound like an apostle of zakath.



...what I believe in is my family...

So according to you, your family is what is in control of michael and his murderous heart. "A mans heart is like a river that God himself direct..."


Hope that answers the question if not, I’m sure I’ll hear from you

Sure did. You sound like a pagan.

patsfan
March 23rd, 2005, 10:58 AM
OF im still waiting for a answer to my other question.

Nineveh
March 23rd, 2005, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

I would imagine the Vatican sees it as euthanasia, strictly speaking.


Mar. 22, 2005 VATICAN CITY - The Vatican pressed its campaign to keep Terri Schiavo alive Tuesday, saying that pulling the plug on the brain-damaged Florida woman amounted to capital punishment for someone who has committed no crimes.cite (http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/breaking_news/11201697.htm)

Zakath
March 23rd, 2005, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh
...Thank you for exposing you aren't a Christian. So every time you assume to speak for God, you are merely speaking for yourself. You really do sound like an apostle of zakath.Nope. S/he's not one of mine. :D

I don't "do" followers. I leave that to the religionists... ;)

On Fire
March 23rd, 2005, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by patsfan

OF im still waiting for a answer to my other question. :thumb:

Zakath
March 23rd, 2005, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by On Fire

:thumb: If that's the answer, what was the question? :think:

patsfan
March 23rd, 2005, 11:52 AM
the question was who do you measure intelligence from? he called me stupid and i asked who or what he measured intelligence from to call me or any one else stupid. He has yet to get back to me.

Zakath
March 23rd, 2005, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by patsfan

the question was who do you measure intelligence from? he called me stupid and i asked who or what he measured intelligence from to call me or any one else stupid. He has yet to get back to me. Thanks for the reply.

So we're still waiting for a substantive answer... :sleep:

patsfan
March 23rd, 2005, 11:58 AM
got one, sorry was out to lunch, but still not a answer to my question. check out is granite worth debating. its there.

Zakath
March 23rd, 2005, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by patsfan

got one, sorry was out to lunch, but still not a answer to my question. check out is granite worth debating. its there. Well that's a helpful place for him to post it! :nono:

patsfan
March 23rd, 2005, 12:02 PM
thats where it started, but he has yet to give me an answer to the question i asked. i wouldnt have thought that answering a question could be so hard. :confused:

BillyBob
March 23rd, 2005, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by patsfan

the question was who do you measure intelligence from? he called me stupid and i asked who or what he measured intelligence from to call me or any one else stupid. He has yet to get back to me.

The use of proper punctuation and capitalization is a good guage.

Zakath
March 23rd, 2005, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Sorry, for being a preacher you can't even figure out a simple typing mistake? This is getting borish and pathetic.Hey, its your typo, not mine. Besides, that's boorish, not "borish". ;)

I missed that part in the book of Zakath.[/qiote]You might try reading your own bible sometimes; the parts other than your cherry-picked "Gospel According to Nineveh".

[quote]Right, Michael is responsable for Terri's murder.And the husband isn't the head of the wife, right?

And the wife's parents should try to break up the marriage, right?

And the state should intevene in the affairs of the family, right?

Interesting bible you read, there Ninny. ;)


And humans are never in error along with never being responsible. And your god never makes evil, either, eh? ;)

the Sibbie
March 23rd, 2005, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by patsfan


Roughly six teen hundred people die every minuet. That ranges from one abortion every twenty seconds of every day, to the nine to ten kids from six teen to nine teen that die every day in car accidents. This happens to be one with a face that we can see.
I see some very intelligent people who are wasting their time going back forth over this and calling each other names, when we could be talking about the ethnic cleansing that happens across the world all the time. We could be discussing the abortion issue. And I know some of you would liken this whole thing to an “adult sized abortion.” We could be discussing the persecution of your Christian brothers in the Sudan and Asia. We could be discussing how to better help the missionary Peter Hammond and his ministry, while I may not be a Christian is still find this a worthy cause.

...I’m just a very evil man from wanting to focus on something with some relevance, In other words, "I just want to detract from the issue at hand. I'm tired of hearing about Terri." :baby:



:troll:

patsfan
March 23rd, 2005, 12:11 PM
*shakes head*, your dodges are really getting old.

"Dont change the subject just answer the ****ing question."

Steven, Braveheart.

BillyBob
March 23rd, 2005, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by patsfan

*shakes head*, your dodges are really getting old.

"Dont change the subject just answer the ****ing question."

Steven, Braveheart.

Did you know that even implying the 'F' word is cause for banishment at TOL?

No? Read my lips: :CleverDan

patsfan
March 23rd, 2005, 12:19 PM
Once again, you change the subject.

BillyBob
March 23rd, 2005, 12:21 PM
Nope, just commenting on your most current post.

But hey, don't take my word for it. Keep it up and see how long you last here. :wave2:

Zakath
March 23rd, 2005, 12:25 PM
BB speaks from experience, IIRC. :think:

Nineveh
March 23rd, 2005, 12:41 PM
Returning the fave: [/qiote] is spelled "quote"


Originally posted by Zakath

You might try reading your own bible sometimes; the parts other than your cherry-picked "Gospel According to Nineveh".

I don't need to add to or subtract from what's there, zakath, that seems to be your trick.


And the husband isn't the head of the wife, right?

And the wife's parents should try to break up the marriage, right?

And the state should intevene in the affairs of the family, right?

Well no! It should be perfectly legal to murder invalids. The families and law keepers should stay out of it and let spouses murder each other. :rolleyes:


And your god never makes evil, either, eh? ;)

Seems to me humans are perfectly able to "make" their own evil. It also seems to me there are plenty of people like you out there to support them in it as well.

patsfan
March 23rd, 2005, 12:44 PM
In your eyes who created sin?

Zakath
March 23rd, 2005, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Returning the fave: [/qiote] is spelled "quote"Thank you. :D


I don't need to add to or subtract from what's there, zakath, that seems to be your trick.Me? Show me where...



Well no! It should be perfectly legal to murder invalids. The families and law keepers should stay out of it and let spouses murder each other. The person is in a PVS. They cannot be fed or given water except by surgical intervention. It's hardly murder.

Murder requires both malice and forethought. Where's the malice in this case? The man claims to be following the stated preferences of his spouse before she was incapacitated.


Seems to me humans are perfectly able to "make" their own evil.As is your deity. Perhaps you actually are made in his image.


It also seems to me there are plenty of people like you out there to support them in it as well. Not me. You've obviously mistaken me for a religionist.

wholearmor
March 23rd, 2005, 12:45 PM
Do you have sin in your eyes, Nineveh?

BillyBob
March 23rd, 2005, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by patsfan

In your eyes who created sin?


Bill Belichick

Nineveh
March 23rd, 2005, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by Zakath
Me? Show me where...

It's up to you to prove a seizure, not me.


The person is in a PVS.

Lie.


They cannot be fed or given water except by surgical intervention. It's hardly murder.

She can be fed orally. Except her alleged husband won't allow it.


Murder requires both malice and forethought.

Of which there is evidence.


Where's the malice in this case?

Getting rid of the "wife" in the hospital would "allow" him to live on millions with his new family.


The man claims to be following the stated preferences of his spouse before she was incapacitated.

Hearsay.


As is your deity.

Really? Are you leading or following patsfan?


Perhaps you actually are made in his image.

Why thank you :)


Not me. You've obviously mistaken me for a religionist.

Yes you. You've, in this post alone, went down the murderer's talking points.

Nineveh
March 23rd, 2005, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by wholearmor

Do you have sin in your eyes, Nineveh?

:ha:

Only when I read the news...

Zakath
March 23rd, 2005, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

It's up to you to prove a seizure, not me.Luke, allegedly a physician, writes a pretty good description of a seizure in Acts...

"...suddenly a light from the sky flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him: ''Saul, Saul! Why do you persecute me?''...Saul got up from the ground and opened his eyes, but he could not see a thing... For three days he was not able to see, and during that time he did not eat or drink anything.'

Paul...
1. Saw a bright light
2. Collapsed to the ground
3. Heard a voice that no one else heard
4. Suffered temporar blindness up to several days
5. Had decreased appetite and thirst

All are symptoms consistent with a grand-mal seizure in epilepsy.

Paul himself also referred to an apparent long-term illness in his letters.

Interestingly enough, epilepsy was known as "St. Paul's disease" for centuries in Europe.



Lie. She can be fed orally. Except her alleged husband won't allow it.Not according to her former court appointed guardian ad litem, Dr. Jay Wolfson, professor of public health and medicine at the University of South Florida, College of Public Health in Tampa, and Professor of Law, Stetson University College of Law. He answered questions today in an online interview in the Washington Post.

"...she cannot swallow anything but her own saliva, and would aspirate (suck into her lungs) any food or water that might be given to her... "


Question: Did you interview any of the doctors or nurses who said they gave Terri jello or other foods? They said she ate it and enjoyed it.

Dr. Jay Wolfson: there is no credible evidence to support any of those contentions.

(Source) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57781-2005Mar22.html)


The "lie" appears to be coming from Terry's parents or others that have something to gain from prolonging present condition...



Getting rid of the "wife" in the hospital would "allow" him to live on millions with his new family.Perhaps, perhaps not. Only time will tell.


Hearsay.Not at all. It's based on legal testimony admitted into court records. According to the interview mentioned above with her former state appointed legal guardian...

"I also concluded that based on the same Florida laws and rules, the trier of fact appropriately determined that Terri had expressed, while she was competent, the intention never to be kept artificially alive under such circumstances. The evidence supporting this included competent legal evidence demonstrating that she personally expressed those intentions at the funerals of two family members who had been on life support -- so it was contextual... " (emphasis mine - Z)


Those, as they say, are the facts of the case at hand.

Interpret them as you wish. :think:

Nineveh
March 23rd, 2005, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

Luke, allegedly a physician, writes a pretty good description of a seizure in Acts...

Odd he didn't use the term.


"...suddenly a light from the sky flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him: ''Saul, Saul! Why do you persecute me?''...Saul got up from the ground and opened his eyes, but he could not see a thing... For three days he was not able to see, and during that time he did not eat or drink anything.'

Paul...
1. Saw a bright light
2. Collapsed to the ground
3. Heard a voice that no one else heard
4. Suffered temporar blindness up to several days
5. Had decreased appetite and thirst

All are symptoms consistent with a grand-mal seizure in epilepsy.

Oops, ex pastor you goofed: The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone.

I guess you can make up whatever you like to defend your hated of God.


Paul himself also referred to an apparent long-term illness in his letters.

Do a little digging you might find it had to do with his eyes.


Interestingly enough, epilepsy was known as "St. Paul's disease" for centuries in Europe.

And?


Not according to her former court appointed guardian ad litem, Dr. Jay Wolfson, professor of public health and medicine at the University of South Florida, College of Public Health in Tampa, and Professor of Law, Stetson University College of Law. He answered questions today in an online interview in the Washington Post.

"...she cannot swallow anything but her own saliva, and would aspirate (suck into her lungs) any food or water that might be given to her... "

Well, let's just go with that one opinion, ok? It's not like there aren't many many more we can discount in our support of murdering an invalid.


Question: Did you interview any of the doctors or nurses who said they gave Terri jello or other foods? They said she ate it and enjoyed it.

Dr. Jay Wolfson: there is no credible evidence to support any of those contentions.

(Source) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57781-2005Mar22.html)


The "lie" appears to be coming from Terry's parents or others that have something to gain from prolonging present condition...

Big lie to sign your name to.


Perhaps, perhaps not. Only time will tell.

Right, we need to let her alleged husband murder her to make absolutely sure.


Not at all. It's based on legal testimony admitted into court records. According to the interview mentioned above with her former state appointed legal guardian...

"I also concluded that based on the same Florida laws and rules, the trier of fact appropriately determined that Terri had expressed, while she was competent, the intention never to be kept artificially alive under such circumstances. The evidence supporting this included competent legal evidence demonstrating that she personally expressed those intentions at the funerals of two family members who had been on life support -- so it was contextual... " (emphasis mine - Z)

And this one is the only opinion admitted, isn't it? :rolleyes:

Funny the eyewitness accounts you will accept, and the ones you won't. Accept the ones that agree with you, ignore all the rest.

Anyway, does it make you feel good to be supportive of murdering a handicapped person?

Zakath
March 23rd, 2005, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Odd he didn't use the term.Not really, the term epilepsy wasn't coined until after the KJV was translated.




The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. They heard a sound, perhaps Saul himself, but did not hear a voice as Saul claimed he did.


Do a little digging you might find it had to do with his eyes.Residual optic damage, perhaps...


Well, let's just go with that one opinion, ok? It's not like there aren't many many more we can discount in our support of murdering an invalid.That's life, Ninny. Some people agree with you and many, many don't.

So cite someone you believe is a qualified authority (physician, pathologist, etc.) holding a conflicting opinion and who has testified in court on this case...

Nineveh
March 23rd, 2005, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

Not really, the term epilepsy wasn't coined until after the KJV was translated.

Then don't say "seizure (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=701495#post701495)" if that's not what you meant.


They heard a sound, perhaps Saul himself, but did not hear a voice as Saul claimed he did.

Right, I'm sure they were far to ignorant to not know it was Paul they heard.


Residual optic damage, perhaps...

Sure, whatever you wanna add.


Some people agree with you and many, many don't.

Perhaps you should read a little of the opinions that are disagreeing with you on the issue?


So cite someone you believe is a qualified authority (physician, pathologist, etc.) holding a conflicting opinion and who has testified in court on this case...

Google "Terri's fight".

Anyway, does it make you feel good to be supportive of murdering a handicapped person?

Zakath
March 23rd, 2005, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Then don't say "seizure (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=701495#post701495)" if that's not what you meant.As I stated, I was referring to the term "epilepsy", not "seizure". In ancient times the greeks referred to it as something translating roughly as "the falling sickness". Since it was vital for Saul to have a direct encounter with Jesus to qualify him as an apostle, that's how the event was interpreted by the historian (Luke?).


Right, I'm sure they were far to ignorant to not know it was Paul they heard.Who's to know? Quite a few people thought (some still do) that epileptics were demon possessed.



Perhaps you should read a little of the opinions that are disagreeing with you on the issue?How about providing some...




Google "Terri's fight".I've read parts of the parent's website... it was singularly unimpressive. Particularly the four or five year old photos...


Anyway, does it make you feel good to be supportive of murdering a handicapped person? Removing life support is not murder any more than is the implementation of capital punishment.

Nineveh
March 23rd, 2005, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

As I stated, I was referring to the term "epilepsy", not "seizure". In ancient times the greeks referred to it as something translating roughly as "the falling sickness". Since it was vital for Saul to have a direct encounter with Jesus to qualify him as an apostle, that's how the event was interpreted by the historian (Luke?).

Whatever you wanna add...


Who's to know? Quite a few people thought (some still do) that epileptics were demon possessed.

Another ditty from your faith healers?


How about providing some...

How about reading almost ever post Anne has made? It's not my fault you haven't been keeping up.


I've read parts of the parent's website... it was singularly unimpressive. Particularly the four or five year old photos...

Sure, dimiss what you don't wanna know.

Try the time line.


Removing life support is not murder any more than is the implementation of capital punishment.

Starving a handicapped person to death is murder.

Anyway, does it make you feel good to be supportive of murdering a handicapped person?

Zakath
March 23rd, 2005, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Whatever you wanna add...You really haven't read much scripture, have you?


Another ditty from your faith healers?Nope. More bible...


How about reading almost ever post Anne has made? It's not my fault you haven't been keeping up.Anne?


Sure, dimiss what you don't wanna know.You're certainly free do that, why can't the rest of us?

I asked for specific authoritative citations. If you don't have anything substantive to post, just admit it and stop wasting our time.

Granite
March 23rd, 2005, 03:14 PM
Ninevah: you keep digging yourself deeper vis a vis Paul, his Damascus experience, his "thorn in the flesh" (which, despite what you think, he never specifically identifies), and regardless of what you insist, the Terri's Fight website is badly in need of an update.

The video clips that keep being shown are roughly four minutes culled from four hours. We're being asked to believe, again, in anecdotal evidence and hearsay.

Without being there firsthand no one can develop a dogmatic opinion. We simply don't know the full story or what the Schindlers or Michael Schiavo is thinking.

Nineveh
March 23rd, 2005, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

You really haven't read much scripture, have you?

Rather, I just don't have a need to make things up.


Nope. More bible...

Oh, yes, more from the gospel according to zakath.


Anne?

Do a search...geesh.


You're certainly free do that, why can't the rest of us?

No one's stopping you, obviously.


I asked for specific authoritative citations. If you don't have anything substantive to post, just admit it and stop wasting our time.

If you are too lazy to look up the information, that's your fault. I already told you Anne has made some extensive posts on the issue. I'm not going to waste my time doing your homework when it will most likely end with your rejection of it anyway.

Anyway, does it make you feel good to be supportive of murdering a handicapped person?

Zakath
March 23rd, 2005, 03:18 PM
I'm done with Ninny's endless dodging around the point.

I'll just sit back and watch her god be a no-show again...

Granite
March 23rd, 2005, 03:20 PM
Nin's hackjob self-importance is amusing for a few rounds. Then it's old.

Actually it reminds me of talking to Sozo, only with the mouth washed out with soap.:think:

Zakath
March 23rd, 2005, 03:23 PM
Yes she is significantly better for mixed company than So-slow... ;)

Nineveh
March 23rd, 2005, 03:25 PM
Hey zakath,
Does it make you feel good to be supportive of murdering a handicapped person?

Granite
March 23rd, 2005, 03:27 PM
:darwinsm:

Ah, I wonder what Nin and company do in their free time...

"You talking to me? YOU TALKING TO ME???"

Zakath
March 23rd, 2005, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Hey zakath,
Does it make you feel good to be supportive of murdering a handicapped person? Since it was ordered by the state, this particular act is not murder... any more than capital punishment is murder.

But I wouldn't expect you to actually understand the point. It would involve actually thinking about something for a change.

:nono:

Nineveh
March 23rd, 2005, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

Since it was ordered by the state, this particular act is not murder... any more than capital punishment is murder.

So, what the Nazi's did was justifiable, too?


But I wouldn't expect you to actually understand the point. It would involve actually thinking about something for a change.:nono:

For all the posts you have put into the defense of this man, why are you having such a hard time answering one question?

Oh, and slamming me, doesn't make you any less lazy.

BChristianK
March 23rd, 2005, 04:37 PM
I am resolving to cast no votes for the retention of any and all elected judges in the next upcoming election. Regardless of politics, regardless of record.

In my view, judges have a responsibility to speak to these issues and to police themselves.

If the judges I vote for every election, many of whom I do not know but vote to retain regardless, will not come forward in a solidarity of rejection of judge Greer's handling of this case, I will vote to get them off the bench.

And I urge everyone else to do the same.

Grace and Peace

Art Deco
March 23rd, 2005, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by granite1010 We're being asked to believe, again, in anecdotal evidence and hearsay. That's what Judge (sic) Greer did when he accepted Michael Schiavo's questionable testimony. Where is Terri's written statement to be killed by dehydraytion and starvation?

Posted by Granite1010:
Without being there firsthand no one can develop a dogmatic opinion. We simply don't know the full story or what the Schindlers or Michael Schiavo is thinking. Judge Greer and his co-conspirator in the killing of Terri have seen to that. :madmad:

Nineveh
March 24th, 2005, 08:56 AM
Day 6 :(

On Fire
March 24th, 2005, 09:54 AM
Starving/dehydrating someone to death is cruel beyond words. Decapitation would be less cruel. Unbelievable.

Jukia
March 24th, 2005, 10:25 AM
I'd guess there are several 100 thousand pages of court transcripts, medical records etc in this case. Amazing how judgmental a group of Bible thumpers can be based on newspaper, TV and dirt bag Delay reports; I wonder how many have bothered to review the whole case?

Nineveh
March 24th, 2005, 10:27 AM
I came to my conclusion last year by watching the vid, and you?

Zakath
March 24th, 2005, 10:55 AM
It appears "The Supremes" have weighed in and declined to order resinsertion of the feeding tube.

What's that, the fifth time they've been petitioned by Terry's parents?????

Since there has been no substantive change in their daughter's condition since the last three times they appealed, you'd think their legal counsel would advise them to stop wasting the court's time.

:doh:

So now, it's up to Ninny's deity to do something...

... should we be expecting G.W.B. to claim divine instructions to assault the Florida hospice and take Terry Schaivo into "protective custody" at Gitmo...

:rolleyes:

Nineveh
March 24th, 2005, 10:58 AM
Does it make you feel good to be supportive of murdering a handicapped person?

On Fire
March 24th, 2005, 11:05 AM
:zakath: is afraid no one would fight for his life.

Zakath
March 24th, 2005, 11:10 AM
I've already answered Ninny's question twice.

Like Schaivo's parents, she cannot seem to comprehend an answer she doesn't agree with.

Zakath
March 24th, 2005, 11:12 AM
On Fire seems to be content to blow smoke again... ;)

I wouldn't expect anyone like you to fight for my life... you'd be more than happy to see me burn in agony for eternity.

:devil:

On Fire
March 24th, 2005, 11:13 AM
Not ME, you silly coot. Your FAMILY.

Zakath
March 24th, 2005, 11:33 AM
OnFire wrote:
Not ME, you silly coot. Your FAMILY.

Firstly, that's "silly old coot".

Secondly, that's Dr. silly old coot, to you, youngster.

Thirdly, I have standing DNR orders and a living will spelling out specifically how far my family or health care providers are permitted to go in keeping this old carcass functioning.

I love my family too much to allow them to waste family resources on a hopeless situation.

Granite
March 24th, 2005, 11:33 AM
Art, both sides are guilty of using hearsay. That's all they have to work with, in the absence of a written will.

Nineveh
March 24th, 2005, 11:43 AM
Zakath,
"I've already answered Ninny's question twice."

No you haven't wimp. You sound like a good nazi though.

On Fire
March 24th, 2005, 11:44 AM
....because you fear no one in your family would fight for your life, you silly old coot.

Zakath
March 24th, 2005, 12:01 PM
Zakath,
"I've already answered Ninny's question twice."

No you haven't wimp. You sound like a good nazi though.Ah the spammers ultimate resort when backed into a corner, call the opposition names... :chuckle:

Well, if you want to play like that, you're as pathetic as you are ignorant, Nineveh. :(

Zakath
March 24th, 2005, 12:02 PM
....because you fear no one in your family would fight for your life, you silly old coot.
I answered this one previously... it's a resource-based decision, not an emotional one.

On Fire
March 24th, 2005, 12:03 PM
I answered this one previously... it's a resource-based decision, not an emotional one.
Exactly. Your life is worth squat and you fear no one would fight to save it.

Gerald
March 24th, 2005, 12:17 PM
Exactly. Your life is worth squat and you fear no one would fight to save it.Well, I know full well that no one would fight to save mine (I have expressly forbidden it), and the prospect does not bother me in the least.

Zakath
March 24th, 2005, 12:21 PM
Exactly. Your life is worth squat...Interesting perspective for an alleged Christian....
:think:

Nineveh
March 24th, 2005, 12:21 PM
Ah the spammers ultimate resort when backed into a corner, call the opposition names... :chuckle:

All it takes is paging back, you wimped out, you are a wimp.


Well, if you want to play like that, you're as pathetic as you are ignorant, Nineveh.

I'd rather be pathetic and ignorant than a nazi who supports murdering handicapped people.

Zakath
March 24th, 2005, 12:24 PM
All it takes is paging back, you wimped out, you are a wimp.I replied to your question on two separate threads.

You got your answer, you merely disagreed with it.

From where I sit, that's your problem, not mine.


I'd rather be pathetic and ignorant than a nazi who supports murdering handicapped people.Well, you've apparently got your wish. :)

Nineveh
March 24th, 2005, 12:31 PM
I replied to your question on two separate threads.

No you didn't you talked around it, both times you attempted to answer it.


You got your answer, you merely disagreed with it.

The question was, "Does it make you feel good to be supportive of murdering a handicapped person?"


From where I sit, that's your problem, not mine.

C'mon, stand up for your beliefs, be a proud nazi!


Well, you've apparently got your wish. :)

It was never my wish you support murdering handicapped people. Hiding behind the courts to justify your hate only makes you sound like a nazi.

On Fire
March 24th, 2005, 12:36 PM
She told you, :vomit: SOC.

(Did I get it right?)

Zakath
March 24th, 2005, 12:40 PM
She told you, :vomit: SOC.

(Did I get it right?)Nope. Give it up. You're just demonstrating, again, that some religionists are petty and vindicitive when things don't go their way.

So how much longer do you think your god will "allow" Terry Schaivo to suffer?

Nineveh
March 24th, 2005, 12:42 PM
So how much longer do you think your god will "allow" Terry Schaivo to suffer?

How long are you planning on being a nazi?

Zakath
March 24th, 2005, 12:43 PM
No you didn't you talked around it, both times you attempted to answer it.Some people just cannot handle disappointment. :sigh:


It was never my wish you support murdering handicapped people. I don't support murdering handicapped people. I do support allowing people to avoid years of unwanted life support to prolong existence in an incurable state.

You appear content will allowing her to suffer for decades, claiming our deity wants it that way.

How much longer do you think your deity will keep her alive and suffering? :down:

Zakath
March 24th, 2005, 12:45 PM
How long are you planning on being a nazi?
Try reading a bit of history. I think your definition of the term "nazi" is seriously defective.

Of course, your definitions of quite a few things seem to be seriously defective... :think:

Zakath
March 24th, 2005, 12:50 PM
Ninny,

I'm done with this thread. You've adequately demonstrated the bankruptcy of your position and the impotence of your god.

I've got other things to do and won't waste time waiting around for your deity to pull something out of the hat.

I'm sure you'll keep everyone posted if you figure out some way to spin this tragedy as a "victory" for your religion.

:nono:

the Sibbie
March 24th, 2005, 12:50 PM
Some people just cannot handle disappointment. :sigh:

I don't support murdering handicapped people. I do support allowing people to avoid years of unwanted life support to prolong existence in an incurable state.So someone who has had both their legs cut off and has given up on life should be allowed to commit suicide?

Nineveh
March 24th, 2005, 12:54 PM
Some people just cannot handle disappointment. :sigh:

I don't support murdering handicapped people.

Yes you do. Every post you make supports her murder and mocks those who don't.


I do support allowing people to avoid years of unwanted life support to prolong existence in an incurable state.

You appear content will allowing her to suffer for decades, claiming our deity wants it that way.

How much longer do you think your deity will keep her alive and suffering? :down:

Who said she doesn't want her life? She tried to get out of bed when a doc told if she didn't they were going to harm her.


Try reading a bit of history. I think your definition of the term "nazi" is seriously defective.

According to history, at Nuremberg the excuse was, "I was just following orders." What you are saying is, "I support them just following orders." Same/same.


Of course, your definitions of quite a few things seem to be seriously defective...

Coming from a nazi like you, all I can say is, thanks :)