Since this is related to the case but a tangent, I’ll post it separately since it could likely engender a whole different discussion.
What occurs to me is that if the person in a coma were one half of a gay married couple, if the spouse were advocating that all extreme measures SHOULD be taken to keep the comatose mate going, and it was the parents who were saying the patient should be starved to death…
Congress wouldn’t touch it with a ten meter cattle prod.
PAD
• 
It is relevant. I if spend for hours waving a ballon in front of her face, odds are good you’ll get at least one shot that appears to show her following ballon. Editing the tape down to seven minutes that only show the parts that appear to prove your case is fraud.
Truly.
seven minutes out of four hours plus is about 3 percent of the time. My memory of stats says that it isn’t surprising that this happens out of purely random chance.
This IS compelling evidence…that there isn’t any brain function.
“AmericaBlog notes that while George W. Bush was gung-ho to interrupt his vacation and fly back to DC on her behalf, he didn’t bother with that much zest nor zeal for the 100,000+ victims of the December tsunami, nor the victims of the 9/11 attack, nor…”
Nor on August 6 2001, when informed “Bin Laden determined to attack within the United States”
I can say with certainty that the Christian conservatives, such as James Dobson or myself, would be just as loudly and strongly protesting ANYONE being starved to death in a similar circumstance.
You say a lot of things with certainty. Most of them are hypothetical.
As is this one. I’ll believe it when I see it.
Have you watched the videos posted on her website?
Oh, it’s hers? Cool — that really does settle the case then. If she’s responsive enough to maintain a web site, then she’s obviously …
What’s that? She’s not running it?
Then stop calling it hers.
TWL
“Her mind is gone. Has been for 15 years.”
No wonder Bush can relate to her.
PAD
Was going to comment on the original topic of this thread, but A.) This has turned into a continuation of the previous one rather quickly, and B.) this caught my eye..
Peter David,
‘her mind is gone. Has been for 15 years.’
“No wonder Bush can relate to her.”
Did you really think this was funny, PAD? Really? Or are you just so full of hate and anger over everything the man does, says and is that even a comment like this was not considered by an “enlightened” mind such as yourself to be an utterly tasteless and unnecessary remark?
You make statements like this and then go into ‘How DARE you’ mode when someone floats the suggestion that you might actualy be rooting for an assassination?
Cheese and crackers, think about what you write sometimes. You come off as incredibly, incredibly angry.
Not an ideal mindset for leading civil, intelligent discourse.
Oh, for crying out loud. Making a (admittedly) snide comment about Bush being a pinhead is hardly synonymous with wishing the guy dead. If you’re that anxious to find a flimsy excuse to act all morally superior and pìššëd øff, do everybody else a favor and just keep quiet, please.
-Rex Hondo-
PAD and everyone else in this country have a GØÐÐÃMN GOOD REASON to be angry as Der Ferhur Bush…
Deal with it
Score (another) one for the good guys thanks to the federal judge refusing to order the feeding tube reinstalled.
Oh and to all you áššhølëš bleating about “starvatin is terrible way for her to die”… Legalize euthanasia and we won’t have to let the people like Terri starve to end their suffering…
>>>’her mind is gone. Has been for 15 years.’
>>”No wonder Bush can relate to her.”
>Did you really think this was funny, PAD? Really?
I did. Hilariously so.
But then, humour is often invaluable in helping reduce stress and pain during difficult times. Which her situation certainly qualifies as.
Peter David:
“her mind is gone. Has been for 15 years. No wonder Bush can relate to her.”
Jerome Maida:
“Did you really think this was funny, PAD? Really?”
Hi guys,
Jerome is right. That’s far too obvious and easy a jab to make. Must have been rather unsatisfying for Peter since he is cabable of much funnier material.
Now everyone close your eyes and inagine our president trying to get past the title of the book “Sir Apropos of Nothing.” Now imagine him saying, “Oh, I get it… The ‘O’ is silent.”
DISCLAIMER: This post has been in jest. Have a nice day. Nice day subject to change.
I stopped making Bush jokes a long time ago. Too easy. I didn’t have time left for much else in my day.
But remember, laughing is what you do when the only other option is to cry.
“You make statements like this and then go into ‘How DARE you’ mode when someone floats the suggestion that you might actualy be rooting for an assassination?”
Yes, I do. I wish he were out of office because I think his mind has been in a vegetative state for well over a decade. I think, to quote Aaron Sorkin, that he’s turned being disengaged into this sort of zen thing. I think he’s a hypocrite, a lair, and has accomplished the remarkable feat of being both manipulator and manipulated, puppeteer and puppet, all at the same time.
But there is a gargantuan distance, a chasm, between wishing he were out of the White House and wishing he were out of the White House feet first, especially through violent means. And it is offensive when someone attributes the latter sentiment to me out of hand when there is not one shred of evidence, not one comment I’ve ever made, that would lend credence to it.
PAD
Congress should never get involved in what is obstensibly a local case, regardless of whether the people involved are gay or not.
I used to punch at straw men like this, but it leaves horrible itchy scratches on my arms.
Prez Bush is safe, the Secret Service has banned pretzels from the White House…
I say, serve the president pretzels every chance you get…
For the record, I laughed out loud when I read PAD’s little “No wonder Bush can relate to her” joke.
I can see disagreeing with the remark if you somehow find Bush intelligent or something. I wasn’t totally happy with how many jokes David Letterman told about President Clinton every night … a year or more after he was out of office. But I was never personally incensed at Dave. Oh well. Thanks for the laugh, PAD 🙂
I laughed at a lot of the Clinton jokes. I still do, most recently in a staff meeting this morning.
That doesn’t mean that I don’t respect the job Clinton did as President.
More and more, my laughter at Bush jokes is tempered by the rather sobering thought that he’s still President. And his actions have taken this country to what I consider to be very dark and confined places. Places where true liberty and respect for life gets replaced by rhetoric and lies.
Then, I don’t laugh so much.
Making this a federal case, with Terri subpoenaed, is simply the latest tactic in stalling any further action. It is, after all, illegal to harm (or “harm”) someone under subpoena.
Life, in and of itself, just isn’t enough…there’s quality of life to consider, as well.
When I first heard of this story several years ago, sources seemed to want to paint the husband in a bad light…”Oooh…bad man’s tryin’ to kill his wife because he’s got a new girlfriend.” It would seem that he’s made his peace with the idea that everything that made Terri “Terri” is long gone, and won’t be coming back, given that she’s been in this state for over a decade. I feel for her parents, I really do…but it would seem they need to come to that same peace.
What it comes down to, is that people see what they want to see, and don’t hear what they don’t want to hear. Court appointed doctors, not the husband’s doctors, examined Terri and declared her as being in a persistant vegitative state. Parts of her brain have liquified…there’s nothing to treat, nothing to heal.
Her parents see her body moving, and see her reacting to sound. They see their daughter, when all that’s really there is just a body. Everything that made Terri a person is gone. So they see what they want (their daughter) and don’t hear what they don’t want to hear (their daughter is gone and not ever going to come back).
Here’s William Saletan in Slate:
Schiavo’s parents have circulated video clips purporting to show that their daughter responds to stimuli. Skeptics point out that the clips omit hours of unresponsiveness
They finally showed some of that video last night, or at least I finally saw some of it. It really is kind of sad, seeing the family put so much hope into every little motion. The part that I saw that, I guess, demonstrates Terri following some motion with her eyes came after several calls of “over here, Terri, over here.” She moves her eyes over, and they cheer.
The fact that some do NOT think the government does a very good job of handling such care or the money for such care does not mean that they want to deny them such care. Oppposition to Medicaid does not mean there is a desire to harm someone.
Well, that’s refreshing to hear. I have encountered too many conservatives of the opinion that poor people deserve what happens to them, and genuinely resent the idea of their own money going to someone else in need. I’m much happier discussing different means to a common goal than battling conflicting goals.
You may disagree if they should, but it is not otherwise violating the sanctity of the marriage.
Y’see, to me, the nature of the marriage covenant is the WHOLE case here. Part of being married is the right and power to make medical decisions for one’s spouse if they are incapacitated. There is no question that removing the feeding tube would be legal if Terri had requested it directly or in a will. The right to refuse treatment is not disputed. What is at issue is whether or not a spouse has the same right in lieu of the incapacitated patient.
In almost all matters of law, a marriage bond trumps any other kinship. A parent or an adult child or a sibling do not have the same authority if there is a legal spouse, even if they are long estranged. (That’s why it’s important to make a divorce official…there’s nothing like having to settle the debts and arrange a funeral for someone who ran out on you…)
Indeed, this is one of the reason gays want to marry: while some of these rights and powers can be contracted, many can ONLY be granted by marriage.
It’s also worth noting that by making a law specific to this case, congress has given Terri Schiavo a different set of rights than every other person in such a condition. Whether they are granting her special protection or denying her right to refuse care is beside the point; she is now, legally, not subject to the same laws as the rest of the country.
**Posted by BJ **
**The Texas Futile Care Law, signed into law by the Retard who holds the presidency presently. Under this law, a baby was removed from life support against his mother’s wishes in Texas just this week. **
**That proves it, George Bush isn’t in this for the sancity of life, this is nothing more than a political brownie point drive with the religious fruitcakes who have no problem killing muslim children (warning not for the faint of heart: http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm) or the children of poor American women, but god forbid you try to remove a brain dead woman from life support and let nature take it’s natural course. Where are George Bush’s cries for the lives of those he sentenced to death BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT PAY in Texas?!!!! **
**Well Iowa Jim, your president and all his sycophants are strangely silent! Sancity of life… Hogwash, talking points is more like it!**
Two blogs I found with more details of that case. The first one is a bioethist’s defense of the Texas law:
http://www.leanleft.com/archives/2005/03/20/4103/
Apparently Sun Hudson’s actual prognosiss was no where near as sunny as advertised.
This one is from one of the law’s authors explaining just what they were wanting that law to do:
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/healthlawprof_blog/2005/03/lifesupport_sto.html
Apparently representatives from both the Texas and National Right to Life groups and the Hemlock Society had hands in this bill.
Something to think about.
Chris
We have a lot of people upset at the demonization of the husband, as if he were an angel simply trying to carry out his wife’s wishes. Perhaps he’s not a demon, but you don’t know that he’s an angel, either.
The eye witness testimony of nurses who have worked with Terri (and not all of them want the tube reinstated) paint a very different picture, from him bullying the staff, to dancing gleefully around saying he’s “going to be rich!” and locking himself in the room with Terri alone for twenty minutes and Terri having bruises afterward and responding as if afraid (some of this was a year or two ago when she was far more responsive, could say a few words and interact with people). Some have claimed he went even farther than that.
I don’t know if any of it is true; I do know that justice will never be found in this case no matter which way it swings. She chose her husband, and if friends are to be believed, she was planning on divorcing him, just not soon enough.
FWIW, I’m as small government as one can get without being an anarchist, but a strict health safety net is in bounds. Basic health care should be a USA kind of thing. And to correct a misnomer, conservatives are willing to give money to the needy, they just don’t want the government to be the middleman. The stats say that Republicans give more to charity than Democrats, IIRC (I think it was in News Week that pointed this out when it was found that Kerry had a horrible history of giving to charity, while Bush has always done quite a bit of charity work).
Hey “Derek!”
—
http://www.terrisfight.net/
Does Terri have an advanced directive or any wishes about her healthcare?
Terri never signed any directive or living will and there is no evidence that she foresaw her present situation.
—
Or:
—
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050322-121622-9464r.htm
Mr. Schiavo insists his wife told him before the 1990 fall that she did not wish to be kept alive by artificial means, but her family points out that Mr. Schiavo waited seven years before disclosing that information.
In an interview Sunday on CNN’s “Late Edition,” Bobby Schindler, Mrs. Schiavo’s brother, said Mr. Schiavo “did not make Terri’s wishes known” until “after Michael announced his engagement to the woman he’s with now.”
—
Of course….
You could do your own research before reaching conclusions the media wishes you to have. But, I suppose it’s much easier to just assume everyone who has an opinion differing from yours is a “rude jërkøff”.
What’s most interesting, to me, is that the successive court case rejections are soley based on an inability by the courts to overturn the intial judge’s “fact” finding of Michael stating that this is Terri’s wish. Through all the appeals, several judges have suggested that while they don’t agree with this “fact” they can not outright deny the possibility of it and therefore can not grant an appeal.
[Unfortunately, I don’t have a link on this yet as it was information gleaned from a radio program, which I suppose in some people’s eyes makes it suspect, but that’s there problem, not mine.]
Some justice system, huh?
And while you may not agree with the Executive and Legislative Branch’s decision to intervene, the Constitution allows for it so … quite your bìŧçhìņ about it being wrong. If it was wrong, or illegal, it wouldn’t have been done.
Sane, how does the Constitution allow for a Federal legislative intervention into a state court matter? Many, many laws are passed that are later declared unconstitutional, meaning they were wrong to pass in the first place.
Yes, our justice system allows, in most cases, only the initial court to consider and determine issues of fact. If every court that reviewed a case was able to review the facts (referred to a de novo review), there’d never be any certainty to our court system. And each and every appeal would be an entirely new trial, with a new jury. There’d be no point to having the lower court, if the higher court can just totally review everything. It’s exactly this aspect of our judicial system that allows it to work at all, with any sense of completion or timeliness.
Appeals courts don’t hear witnesses. They review the procedural and legal decisions of lower courts, with occasionally a verbal argument made by the parties’ attorneys. The best an appeals court can do is decide that the lower court erred in making a ruling on a fact, and remand the case back to the lower court to try and get it right. But appeals courts can’t go changing the facts. That’s not their function.
Sane posted:
“And while you may not agree with the Executive and Legislative Branch’s decision to intervene, the Constitution allows for it so … quite your bìŧçhìņ about it being wrong. If it was wrong, or illegal, it wouldn’t have been done.”
Sorry to disillusion you, but there is NOTHING in the Constitution of the United States which allowed for the Congress or the President to pull this action they did. It was wrong, plain and simple.
The same bášŧárdš who preach the idea of a “strict constructionist” interpretation of the Constitution certainly didn’t have any problem in creating something that the Constitution doesn’t specifically allow.
If you find ANYTHING in the U S Constitution which allowed Congress’ action, then by all means, post the appropriate Article and Section with the relevant portion.
For the record, the Senate’s action was done by voice vote, and, given the nature of such votes, there’s no way to know if the mandatory quorum to conduct a vote even existed. (For the Senate, a quorum must be 51 Senators, though as the Senate’s own reference glossary notes about a quorum, “Often, fewer Senators are actually present on the floor, but the Senate presumes that a quorum is present unless the contrary is shown by a roll call vote or quorum call.”
Any part of the Constitution, well, how about the entire Constitution and framework of our government itself?:
http://bensguide.gpo.gov/3-5/government/state/index.html
National, ie Federal, is supreme law of the land. You can quibble that there is nothing in the Constitution expressly stating that Congress can intervene, but there is nothing in the Constitution stating the converse either. So, until this legislation is deemed unconstitutional it is law and therefore must be followed.
Also:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/18/otsc.toobin/
“Remember, those are just state court decisions. There is the entire area of federal courts that the House of Representatives can pursue.
I understand that they are thinking about, at least, if not actively pursuing, getting a federal judge to issue a temporary restraining order, asking that the tube be put back in. In almost all situations, a federal court will trump a state court.
Then there is the issue of the legislation that stalled in the House and Senate last night. But that could be revived. If that becomes law and if President Bush signs it, that is another avenue for litigation to try to get the feeding tube placed back in.”
AND … Bobb, right appeals courts can’t change facts but they can rule that a “fact” may not be a fact, thereby qualifying for a new review/case. And that is what is at stake here, appeal courts have been unable to 100% overturn the “fact” of Terri’s supposed request to not be left like this. This isn’t indicative of a weak case, or faulty appeal, but the limitations of appeal courts.
The nuvo review mandated by FEDERAL law will do what no other court has been able to do since the first case presided over by Whitemore (I think); that is, review the legitamacy of the claim that this is what Terri wanted.
Sane, if it ain’t in the Consitution, then the Feds can’t do it. Now, there’s a lot of wiggle room in the big C, and courts have read a lot of authority that isn’t expressly stated in the Constitution. But our government is one of limitations, meaning that if the states and the people didn’t grant a power to the federal government, it doesn’t have the power.
The right to privacy is one of the most powerful civil rights retained by the people, and one of those things that courts have read into the Constitution. The laws being talked about now would be a huge infringement onto the right of privacy. And are likely, if passed and signed into law, bot at some point be struck down, as other such intrusions into the private affaris of people have been in the past.
I’d be interested in seeing your support for the idea that “In almost all situations, a federal court will trump a state court.” I think you’re going to be hard pressed to back that up. Because it’s only in very limited cases where Federal court can “trump” a state court. It sounds to me like you’ve got our government backwards. The Federal government is not some all powerful entity that allows states to govern their little territories. All power the Feds have is directly derived from and granted by the people and the states. And despite the far reaching effects the excerise that power can have, it’s still a power that is more limited than not.
I think there’s something wrong with Peter’s hypo. The question seems to be ‘How would Congress react if Terri were gay,’ but the hypothetical also switches the stances of the parties involved.
The consequence is that it’s not at all clear which change supports Peter’s conclusion (“Congress wouldn’t touch it”), even though it’s implied that the sexuality would be the deciding issue. Would either change alone result in a different reaction from Congress, or is it the combination of both?
What would happen if Terri were gay, with Michael being a woman wanting to pull the tube and the parents wanting to keep it in? Would Congress react the same way?
What would happen if Terri remains straight, with Michael wanting to keep the tube in and the parents wanting to pull it? Would Congress touch that?
So, until this legislation is deemed unconstitutional it is law and therefore must be followed.
Which it will be.
But that won’t stop them from trying again.
Face facts: this case should never have been dragged into the federal courts to begin with.
It was brought up before the state, the state decided, and Congress decided that that wasn’t good enough.
They have abused their power (again), and something needs to be done about it.
And speaking of bs cases, an Estes Park, CO trustee was voted out in a recall election.
Why?
Because he refused to say the Pledge any longer because it includes the words “Under God”.
Hopefully, this case will FINALLY get that dámņ phrase out of the Pledge, where it never belonged.
Just because our representative government is good enough to ensure that state/people’s rights aren’t trampled for willy nilly reasons, doesn’t negate the fact that Federal is law of the land.
To be fair, the extent of this “trumping” is a source of great debate:
http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/LFBooks/Frohnen0101/AmericanRepublic/PDFs/0082_Pt08_Part7.pdf
and has been for quite some time. In fact, I believe a civil war was once fought regarding similar implications of these very issues.
The power is limited by our Republic, by our ability to have our rights and voices represented in government.
And while, yes, the right to privacy is important and must be maintained, in cases of heavy dispute–such as this–presumption should fall in favor of life. For if you have no life, you have no privacy.
“So, until this legislation is deemed unconstitutional it is law and therefore must be followed.
Which it will be.”
It’ll be exactly as I said! Our unique government provides for both, meaning the fed. has the power to enact law on our behalf unless it can be proved unconstitutional/illegal. Having the option to say something is wrong doesn’t make it inheriently wrong.
And, as for the other comment: seperation of church and state was never intended to abolish all references of god or spirituality from our government. I’m so sick of that ill-advised argument. If God is to be banished from all legal documents, then the freakin Declaration of Independence itself must be thrown out!
You know, the very document that started this grand experiment:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Why does the concept of god, life, and spirituality scare you people so freakin much???
Ken: Who ever booed someone because their life was saved by John Kerry? They booed people who supported his lies but not because he saved their lives.
Luigi Novi: What lies are you referring to?
Jerome Maida: Did you really think this was funny, PAD? Really? Or are you just so full of hate and anger over everything the man does, says and is that even a comment like this was not considered by an “enlightened” mind such as yourself to be an utterly tasteless and unnecessary remark?
Luigi Novi: One doesn’t have to be full of hatred or anger to make a harmless joking jab at the expense of the President, nor question his intelligence when his intelligence is so obviously in question. It’s his blog, and he wants to make a joke, it’s up to him to decide whether to do so. Whether it’s “necessary” is irrelevant.
Jerome Maida: You make statements like this and then go into ‘How DARE you’ mode when someone floats the suggestion that you might actualy be rooting for an assassination?
Luigi Novi: Non sequitur. Saying that Bush is unintelligent has nothing to do with rooting for an assassination, and only someone with a flimsy intellect would equate the two.
If God is to be banished from all legal documents, then the freakin Declaration of Independence itself must be thrown out!
Except, of course, that the D of I isn’t a legal document.
But please accept our thanks for playing, and these lovely parting gifts.
Why does the concept of god, life, and spirituality scare you people so freakin much???
The concept of life doesn’t worry me at all.
The concept of God doesn’t worry me at all.
The concept of spirituality doesn’t worry me at all.
The concept of elected officials using their own particular image of God to set secular policy scares the flying fûçk out of me. As it should you.
TWL
Going to fall an deaf ears, Tim. The only people, so far as I can tell, that support the notion of “under God” and such staying in government sanctioned phrases are those that fall on the side of God. Change out God and say “under Allah,” and my guess is 100% of those folks would start crying “separation of Church and State!” faster than Bladestar could post something to piss someone off.
I wouldn’t say I was offended by PAD’s joke about Bush’s intelligence, but I would say he went a decent way to proving my point about “not so smart” people being one of the few remaining groups that it is OK to ridicule. Or was that not meant to be an insult?
TWL–
How cute, you tried to cut me down with game show verbage….ANYWAY, my point is that the Declaration of Independence embodies the spirit of this nation, and if this nation no longer holds god (in any denomination) as a higher power than you may as well just throw it out the window. For if there is no god, no Creator, then we have no inalienable rights; which is rather important to our notion of government, yes?
And I’ll thank you to not presume what should or should not scare me.
I think Jon Stewart had the best comment I’ve heard so far about all this. to paraphrase: if you wanted to know how sick you had to be before the government helped…now you know.
The second best, also on the daily show (to paraphrase): the federal government decided that instead of doing nothing for everything they would try and do one thing for someone.
there is a very sick wisdom in that I think.
“Change out God and say “under Allah,” and my guess is 100% of those folks would start crying “separation of Church and State!” faster than Bladestar could post something to piss someone off.”
Gee, maybe that’s because Allah is not as ambiguous and nondenominational as ‘god.’ That and we are a Judeo Christian country….Although, given enough time, I’m sure the ACLU would advocate such a move.
Sane ignorantly bleated: “That and we are a Judeo Christian country….”
I call TOTAL FÙÇKÍNG BÙLLSHÍT!
Separation of church and state says America is NOT a religious country at all…
Religious countries are the ones where the women are forced to wear burkas and can’t drive or vote…
We invaded Iraq to free the oppressed Iraqi’s, now who will invade America to free the oppressed Americans?
The concept of elected officials using their own particular image of God to set secular policy scares the flying fûçk out of me
To Sane, that is the most important part of TWL’s idea. Personally I have no problem with “under God” being in the pledge only because I think there are many much more important things we need to worry about. If that’s one’s greatest concern then one is worring about the wrong things. Different religions have different theologies about god. Keeping any one specific theology of god out of the government keeps everyone (Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, ect.) on equal standing. The government can acknowledge a higher power just not which specific higher power.
Think of it this way I guess, I don’t think you would want the federal government mandating that all food in this country has to be kosher. It wouldn’t affect my life at all but there is a tremendous amount of others it would.
Anyway, sorry for the digression. Now back to your regularly scheduled postings.
Hey “Derek!”
—
http://www.terrisfight.net/
Does Terri have an advanced directive or any wishes about her healthcare?
Terri never signed any directive or living will and there is no evidence that she foresaw her present situation.
—
Or:
—
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050322-121622-9464r.htm
Mr. Schiavo insists his wife told him before the 1990 fall that she did not wish to be kept alive by artificial means, but her family points out that Mr. Schiavo waited seven years before disclosing that information.
In an interview Sunday on CNN’s “Late Edition,” Bobby Schindler, Mrs. Schiavo’s brother, said Mr. Schiavo “did not make Terri’s wishes known” until “after Michael announced his engagement to the woman he’s with now.”
—
Of course….
You could do your own research before reaching conclusions the media wishes you to have. But, I suppose it’s much easier to just assume everyone who has an opinion differing from yours is a “rude jërkøff”.
What exactly am I supposed to get from the links you provided? One if from a blatantly biased website started in Terri Schiavo’s name and the other is just a generic news article with nothing that I haven’t read already.
And in case you forgot, your initially posted:
“This is not clear cut–clearly attempts at rehabilitation have been stopped by the husband whose sudden memory of Terri not wanting to live like this is suspect. There is no easy answer.”
And you still haven’t provided anything to back up those statements.
locking himself in the room with Terri alone for twenty minutes and Terri having bruises afterward and responding as if afraid (some of this was a year or two ago when she was far more responsive, could say a few words and interact with people). Some have claimed he went even farther than that.
Are you sure you haven’t been reading about an entirely different case because your “facts” are really screwy.
Just as a last aside I realy hate the term Judeo-Christian. There are almost three hundred million people living in America. I think there are about seven million jews (not sure about that number, could be off by three million in either direction I think). Jews are about 2% of the population.
That doesn’t seem very judeo-christian to me. I want this to be a secular nation but if anything this is a christian one, not so called ” Judeo-Christian.”
Sorry to digress, just my little pet peeve. Really, I’m done now. Don’t want to change this thread more than it already is.
I’m so sick of that ill-advised argument.
Maybe you should be sick because of the fact that our Founding Fathers were deists, not Christians?
That the god they refer to in the DoI is not the Christian god, but a generalized god.
The god mentioned in the Pledge? Christian, specifically to target those “aethist pinko Commies”.
First, to A-Greene, I couldn’t agree more, acknowledging A higher power through the generic terminology of the word god is fine. Great, even.
Second, Bladestar, whether you like it or not this country and it’s government are based on judeochristian ethics and creeds. My apologies for not pointing that out clearly enough.
Third, Derek!, it is unfortunate that your reading comprehension skills are such that I have to delineate and point everything out to you. By my count, the links provided accounted for everything. The fact that one of the links is from a source with vested interest in some of the views makes the facts contained within the site no less important. Furthermore, if you’re going to discount the information contained within that site, then you must discount the facts from the husband as well, since that too is clearly biased.
All information is biased-a lazy argument on your part.
And what have you provided, oh great one? You keep countering my at least somewhat intelligent beliefs with, “prove it, prove it, where’s the link?”
Well, I’ve got a final link for ya:
http://www.blowme.com
I tire of this. I stumbled across this site from another site and got disgusted with the self-righteousness of some of these posts. I did something about it. Had my fun, but now feel as though I am stuck in the monkey house at the zoo during mášŧûrbáŧìøņ hour. You people can’t see past your own fears and hatred to realize that a person may be slowly, painfully (because we all know brain damaged people and animals don’t feel pain…) dying against her wish. Sad.
Sane, your handle is a complete Antonym of your status…
Intelligent beliefs? As opposed to proven facts? I’ll take facts over religio-nutjob beliefs any day
The Declaration Of Independence says “… by their creator …”
The creator can be God, Allah, Jahova, Odin, Zeus, Bob, or one’s parents. They were not referring to any one God, Judeo-Christian or otherwise.
1797 Treaty Of Tripoli (article 11)
“As the Government of the United States… is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion”