The GOP's TITANIC Shiavo mistake...

[somdcrab]

fixed

thought you was on my side :shrug:

 

[Larry Gude]

I often feel like so many of us are not

...even talking about the same case.

dems:

and I don't think it would be in existance if the Lord wanted to NOT help mankind

That would explain the ak-47 and nuclear weapons I guess?


Further...

I say, give Terry over to her parents for rehabilitation and therapy and if there is no improvement in a year... bring the case back up and then set legal paramaters for the definition of life and death (if there isn't one already established),

Another year? So 16 years instead of 15. Would it be accurate to say you will not accept the opinion of any expert in this field, none of the nueorologists, IF they say 'she's not there anymore and has not been since the day it happened"? Is it accurate to say you will only accept the opinion of those who say 'there is hope"?

In fact, is it accraute to say the only opinion you'll accept is your own once you've examined Terri for yourself?

I just don't see two wrongs making a right, especially when somone that has been abused, used for her settlement money, will end up dying as a result

So there it is. 'She has been abused'. It's not even a baseless allegation any more; it's now a fact.

And the money, over 70% of which was spent on her care was 'using her'?

Spend a few minutes here, please:

http://www.terrisfight.net/

This is her 'supporters'.

 

[dems4me]

...even talking about the same case.

dems:



Larry... we will have to agree to disagree on this... there are doctors on the parents side that say she will be helped with "proper" rehabilitation, etc... and that they havn't been able to do anythin as long as she is under the husbands domain/guardianship. So, as in life, both sides do have a story... and it's speculative and hearsay if you ask me -- two differing and comprehensive views to one scenario... why not choose the side of life? Afterall by your definition, she is already dead and gone... what would be the harm?

 

[Larry Gude]

Look...

...you state your position is all about miracles and that is fine.

Good enough.

 

[dems4me]

...you state your position is all about miracles and that is fine.

Good enough.

I'm saying both... know one knows :shrug: the miracle coudl be faciliated through therapy or something... I just don't see what the harm would be if fokls think she's dead already... why not give it another year, except under her parents care... if she's dead, than she's dead right? What harm would 12 more months be? Just too many coincidences with the husband... first the abuse allegations, the settlement money, and now after all these years under his "reign" - pull the plug asap!!...and now he wants her cremated... all of this supposedly from what she had made explicitly clear to him and was soo infactic (sp?) about it that she didn't even put it in writting - none of it...? anywhere???? ... what's next? :shrug: Just as human nature there's a big debate on when life officially starts..., I suppose now the debate is - when does life end. :shrug: I don't believe she is dead and gone and I lean on the Bible for such decisions -- Thou shalt not kill... :shrug:

 

[2ndAmendment]

... I lean on the Bible for such decisions -- Thou shalt not kill... :shrug:

Wrong translation of the Hebrew. It says "You shall not murder." Just to set the record.

 

[alex]

If someone has cancer, that is entirely different... they succumb to cancer, you just don't stop feeding and giving water to the patient and deliberately kill them.

So it is okay to stop providing all types of care to a cancer patient? Terri's body would succumb to death if no treatment was provided just like a cancer patient's. So why is okay to stop treatment for a cancer patient but no Terri?

 

[somdcrab]

So it is okay to stop providing all types of care to a cancer patient? Terri's body would succumb to death if no treatment was provided just like a cancer patient's. So why is okay to stop treatment for a cancer patient but no Terri?

i give up einstein why :shrug:

 

[somdcrab]

these rhetorical questions from da rightreverends the hell outta me

 

[dems4me]

Wrong translation of the Hebrew. It says "You shall not murder." Just to set the record.

semantics... murder/killing, etc... is starving someone to death intentionally, and premeditated for desired result.. not murder or killing? Again, it goes back to when folks think life officially is over - and I don't know there will ever be one concensius on that just the same as no one is in full agreement of when life officially begins (fetus, womb, birthcanal, etc...). I personally see it as killing someone.

Larry, a cancer patient is much different than Terry - she doesn't have cancer... they only cancer she has is her husband... Oh hell with any reasoning...I give up... you have heard my opinion over and over and we just don't agree... I think she is still alive and does not have cancer (something steadily killing and attacking the body) oh hell...I give up... why don't we just stick a paintbrush in her mouth and see if she's not a mouth painter or one between her toes maybe she can be a person that paints with her toes... I give up trying to explain things...
You are correct (sarcasim), anyone that does not have full 100% capacity of their limbs and body should be executed and considered dead and an unproductive member of society.

Let me try again, only because I'm stubborn beyond sanity at thispoint... do you think she is a) alive or b) dead and gone? If you feel she is alive, do you condone starvin her to death and killing her ? or do you think she i dead and gone in which case it wouldn't matter what her shell here on earth is doing :shrug:

 

[kwillia]

... do you think she is a) alive or b) dead and gone? If you feel she is alive, do you condone starvin her to death and killing her ? or do you think she i dead and gone in which case it wouldn't matter what her shell here on earth is doing :shrug:

Dems, 80% of her brain has liquified... 80%.

 

[vraiblonde]

Dems, 80% of her brain has liquified... 80%.

Lots of people on here have 80% of their brain liquified and they still manage to boot their computer and type :shrug:

 

[dems4me]

Dems, 80% of her brain has liquified... 80%.

If you wanted to... you can find contradicting facts from the parent's doctors, etc... :shrug: Both sides have compelling arguments and compelling theories, etc... I'm open minded enough to hear both of them.. :shrug: That's why I'm leaning towards life... when in doubt... you can always kill at a later date I suppose, but you can't bring her back from 6 feet under.... It depends on which side you want to hear and believe I guess... I do however think we all agree this is a sad, sad, sad situation...

 

[kwillia]

Lots of people on here have 80% of their brain liquified and they still manage to boot their computer and type :shrug:

<img src="http://www.boomspeed.com/carolrobert/drop.gif">

 

[somdcrab]

Lots of people on here have 80% of their brain liquified and they still manage to boot their computer and type :shrug:

 

[dems4me]

Lots of people on here have 80% of their brain liquified and they still manage to boot their computer and type :shrug:

especially late at night.... :

 

[somdcrab]

 

[2ndAmendment]

semantics... murder/killing,

Not semantics; definition. There is a substantial difference in the Bible and in law between killing and murder. It goes to intent. With your job, you should know that.

Now if you define refusing care as murder, then that would invalidate all living wills. Very precarious position.

 

[dems4me]

Not semantics; definition. There is a substantial difference in the Bible and in law between killing and murder. It goes to intent. With your job, you should know that.

Now if you define refusing care as murder, then that would invalidate all living wills. Very precarious position.

Yes there is a difference, but until someone can legally define what constitutes as being dead and what constitutes as the beginning of life, I won't get into the particulars of the differences between killing and murder. The husband is the one refussing care for her.. not her decision in my opinion and that I see as being a

 

[Lenny]

Larry, a cancer patient is much different than Terry - she doesn't have cancer... they only cancer she has is her husband...

Dems, I believe I injected cancer patients into this discussion, but everyone seems to have missed my point. My father did not suffer the pain of starvation or dehydration which is one of the major objections to pulling Terri's feeding tube. That's the only point I was trying to make.