Terry Schiavo's Feeding Tube Removed - Page 2

Binkie · 03-21-2005, 04:54 PM

Heh... Oh man. Your friend Wolfson has cited some false information there (or as you would say, "crap"). Feel free to look this stuff up on the internet or in court history sites because the urinary tract infection and "do not resuscitate" order occured in '93, not '94. This is what led to the court case against Michael in which Terri's parents tried to remove his legal guardianship of Terri. That also occured in '93, not '94.

The treatments did no good? Where are those affidavits from the staff at these rehabiliation centers in '91 where it was reported that Terri showed "greater interactions of the patient with her environment, including intermittently apparently following commands, turning her head to voice, tracking visually, etc." in Wolfson's report?

His basis for the "do not resuscitate" order was based upon consultations with a doctor? Let's clarify that by saying that his conlustions were not with the doctor about the infection, but simply an informal diagnosis that his wife would never recover. So Michael took it upon himself to decide as of what his wife would have wanted, though this never came up (his wife's wishes) in the '92 malpractice case when Michael was trying to be awarded 20 million dollars to "care for his wife."

To reaffirm this, here's an excerpt from the cross examination durring the Schiavo case in '93:

Q. So when you made the decision not to treat Terri's bladder infection you, in effect, were making a decision to allow her to pass on?
MS. I was making a decision on what Terri would want.

Q. Had the bladder condition been treated?
MS. Yes.

Q. And was...what was the reason that the bladder condition was treated?
MS. Sable Palms Nursing Home said they could not do that by some Florida law which wasn't stated.

So it turns out another thing Wolfson didn't really touch on was that Michael was asking the doctors at the Nursing Home to illegally withold medication from a patient. Oh yes, and medical records do not show any therapy or rehabilitory treatment had been administered "up through 1994." In fact, he refused to impliment any rehabilitory treatment prior to '94, against doctors' recommendations.

Your excerpt from the "report" basically reiterates what I said about the fiance. I'm not sure why you felt the need to include that.

And as for the estate, it's still awarded to Schiavo in the event of his wife's death. You know what's funny about that estate, though? It's supposed to be paying for Terri to recieve treatments, but so far it that it only seems to be paying for room and board. When she dies, the remaining funds that were originally awarded to go towards rehabilitory treatment will be awarded to Michael Schiavo by Florida State Law.

Wolfson's bit on the doctors claiming that Terri is suffering PVS is interesting. You may want to post excerpts from what they used to determine the diagnosis. Because it wasn't Florida's definition of PVS. PVS means you're not responsive in anyway to real world things. These doctor's based their diagnosis not upon the fact that she wasn't responsive, but that she wasn't repetative.

Oh yes, and here's a list of doctors who have sworn in court that they believe Terri can recovere from her current condition:

Dr. William Hammesfahr
Dr. Alexander Gimon
Dr. Jacob Greene
Dr. Richard Neubauer
Dr. William Russell
Dr. Jay Carpenter
Dr. James Avery
Dr. John D. Young
Dr. William Maxfield
Sarah Green Mele – Speech Pathologist
Myra Stinson – Speech Pathologist

Wait, I've heard the name Hammesfahr before. Oh yeah, he was a Nobel Prize Nominee or something. Something about rehabilitating people in Terri's state or something. You can slide that into the "highly recognized" department. But, let's go with people like Dr. James Barnhill, who's examination only took up 10 minutes of his time before he came up with a diagnosis.

Wolfson's report has obvious misinformation in it and you're trying to throw snippets at me (some which only reaffirm my arguements) to nullify arguments that take place on a broader scale (not just what takes place in court - as I've already stated). The ones about the court don't include everything that should be lain out on the table, such as the doctors' findings and how that doesn't work so well with Florida's definition of PVS

Feed me! I require more articles!!!

edible_eye · 03-21-2005, 06:57 PM

dr. hammesfahr's report.
http://libertytothecaptives.net/hamm...r._report.html

dr. alexander gimon did not evaluate terri schiavo. he watched the videotape made by hammesfahr.
http://www.hospicepatients.org/alexa...i-schiavo.html
http://www.apfn.org/Schiavo/alexGimo...avit082503.htm

dr. jacob greene did not evaluate terri schiavo but read through her medical records and watched the video tape.
http://www.apfn.org/Schiavo/Affidavi...ob%20Green.htm

dr. richard neubauer did not evaluate terri schiavo but watched the video tape.
http://www.apfn.org/Schiavo/DrNeubauerAffidavit.htm

dr. william russell did not evaluate terri schiavo but reviewed her medical records and watched the video tape.
http://www.apfn.org/Schiavo/DrRussellaffidavit.htm

dr. jay carpenter did observe terri schiavo although it's unclear whether it was in person or on video, as far as i could find.

dr. james avery - not able to find report of his involvement.

dr. john young - filed an affidavit with the court but transcript not found.

dr. william maxfield - physically examined terri schiavo, according to dr. hammesfahr's report, however no written record was found by me. apparently, he was the one who conducted the balloon experiment to gauge her ability to follow them visually.

sarah greene mele - speech pathologist did not physically examine terri schiavo but based her conclusion on medical records.
http://www.hospicepatients.org/sara-...ri-schiavo.pdf

myra stinson - speech pathologist - not able to find report of her involvement.

so, out of all names listed, it would seem the majority based their conclusion on hammesfahr's report rather than producing an independant evaluation. take it as you will.

MY OPINION - someone who has earned a nobel peace prize has a higher degree of optimism than most since he's already done what others have not been able to achieve. thus far, his optimism has not been realized with terri schiavo.

ice · 03-21-2005, 07:25 PM

This is not directed as an attack, but Dr. "Beppo" Mengele.

Born March 16, 1911 to Karl and Walburga Mengele. Two brothers: Karl (Jr.) and Alois Mengele.

October 1930, Joseph left home for Medicinal and Anthropological schooling.

1937 joins Nazi party, number 5574974.

1938 joins SS, later welcomed into the Waffen SS. Also he received his Medical degree.

1941-42 goes to Eastern front as a Medic, earns two Iron Crosses for bravery.

1943-45 becomes a "doctor" in Auschwitz, in which he attended as many "Selektions" as he could, yelling out "Zwillinge, zwillenge!" (Twins, twins!). One of his experiments went as follows:
"One day Mengele brought chocolate and special cloths. The next day, SS men came and took two children away... one of them was a hunchback. Two or three days later, an SS man brought them back... they had been cut, the hunchback was sewn to the other child, back to back, their wrists back to back too. There was a terrible smell of gangrene, the cuts were dity..."

Well, not that I wouldn't be curious about how long twins could function and stay alive sewn together, but it is psuedo-science holding little or no scientific value. This is but one "experiment" he did upon children.

All I'm saying is he ain't the best choice to use when naming doctors for science's sake.

*quote taken from page 37, and various info from Mengele, the Complete Story. 1986, Gerald Posner and John Ware.

AlKilyu · 03-21-2005, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CptSternn

At the risk of being (more) unpopular, todays funniest link from FARK...

http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2005/031905.asp

I ran Sternn's post through Google's Language Translator page.

I chose "Douchebag to English"

Here are the results:

Quote:

I've made 10 new threads this past week in the hopes of getting attention, because that's what I crave, even if negative. Since they didn't work I'm going to link to a tasteless joke to try to get everyone mad at me, thereby directing attention towards me again. I am compinsating for being ignored, both by females and the military. It's hard being a 30something virgin who pretends to be a real soldier.

I love Google.

edible_eye · 03-21-2005, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ice

All I'm saying is he ain't the best choice to use when naming doctors for science's sake.

i whole-heartedly agree, however it was a rather fascinating visual.

Granny-like_the_apple · 03-21-2005, 10:01 PM

I don't care how many doctors swore affidavits saying they could cure her. It does not matter in the least unless they could prove those claims in court-none could.

This is America, and we have a legal system set up to deal with these types of conflicts. It's been dealt with. Over and over and over again. The courts have sided with Michael every time. If none of those doctors who can supposedly heal Terri were able to show that in court, then that's it. It's over. How much due process does this case need? This is not the place for Congress to stick its nose in and interfere. Are we going to start passing individual laws now to deal with individuals' medical decisions? I care what the doctors in court were able to prove after examining her, and only the doctors arguing that she's in a persistent vegetative state were able to substantionally back up their arguments. The courts found that Terri would not want to be kept alive like this. It does not matter that she left no written will. In Florida, that opens the case to judicial review to decide what the incapacitated person would want. The judicial review has been done. This has been to court almost twenty times. Terri's parents lost. They tried to get him removed as her guardian by accusing him of abuse, of just doing this for monetary interests-it all went to court, and the court never once found substance to their claims. That's it. It's over. They had their chance.

You apparently didn't read either of the court decisions that I posted, or the rest of the Wolfson report (yes, it's a real report, prepared by Terri's Guardian Ad Litem for Jeb Bush) or else you wouldn't have said this: "But, let's go with people like Dr. James Barnhill, who's examination only took up 10 minutes of his time before he came up with a diagnosis." Right, like he's the only person who examined her and came to that conclusion. You also wouldn't have said this: "The ones about the court don't include everything that should be lain out on the table, such as the doctors' findings and how that doesn't work so well with Florida's definition of PVS." Wolfson does discuss the doctors' findings. I don't know why you're focusing on Florida's definition of PVS. It's the same as all of the medical journals I looked in, only much more basic-condensed into two short sentences.

As for the woman he's seeing, you said nobody talks about that. That's untrue. Everyone knows and talks about it. Not many people know, or acknowledge, that Terri's parents actively encouraged him to move on, that it took him years to do it. People like to use it as an example of how much he doesn't care about Terri. I was trying to discredit that theory.

"Wolfson's bit on the doctors claiming that Terri is suffering PVS is interesting. You may want to post excerpts from what they used to determine the diagnosis. Because it wasn't Florida's definition of PVS. PVS means you're not responsive in anyway to real world things."

His "bit"? Look, read the official reports, Wolfson's or either of the court decisions I linked to on the first page, if you want to know what the doctors used to diagnose Terri with PVS. You mocked my "snippets" already, so I'm not going to waste any more space with snippets. You're misinterpreting Florida's definition of PVS. It says no cognitive awareness or voluntary actions. Not "not responsive in any way." Pearse's report, the Guardian Ad Litem who was dismissed because of bias against, not for, Michael. Page two.

As for chronology, I don't know where you're getting your dates. I'm not going to go searching for something you apparently already have. Everything I've read disagrees with you. Link to whatever you've found, please.

I'm very tired, and I may have messed something up factually, and I might come across as curt. If so, sorry. I stand by my original assertion, though-this case should be closed by now. It's been done, congress needs to back away, at this point you almost need to get into conspiracy theories to think that all the trials and all the examinations have been wrong. I don't like conspiracy theories.

CptSternn · 03-22-2005, 06:55 AM

It appears over 70% of americans agree that congress and bush overstepped their boundaries.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/P...622&page=1

The only ones backing them are right wing christian nut jobs - the same people who support killing abortion doctors.

I always thought that was another ironic group there - 'we support the right to all life, except if they grow up and become an abortion doctor'

Panther · 03-22-2005, 07:31 AM

I never got that either. I wonder if htey'd approve of a pre-screenign process that indicates which babies will be abortion doctors, adn have htem legall aborted to save innocent lives?

But on a more topic note, hte last article I read mentioned religion. I could dredge up the link, if it's requested, but I think it's from Newsweek.

They also note she was bulemic. Kinda ironic, eh?

CptSternn · 03-23-2005, 02:09 AM

Panther -

A very good point. All articles mention the 'eating disorder', but only in the past few days since the truth came out in congress it was shown she was bulemic and had been treated for such.

The irony also being her parents couldn't be bothered to monitor her progress on her treatment for that, until she died. Now they want to get involved and make sure shes ok.

Having dated a girl with a severe eating disorder who had to be hospitalised, I'm not saying it's easy to deal with, but definately easy to spot if you know the signs.

Also, This is a person who put their looks above their health, knowing full and well the consequences. You would think this lays more credence to her wanting to be let to die, seeing how she was so concerned with how she looked to the world she was willing to damage her own health. A person like that would rather die than look bad, and look at her now. A drooling invilad in a wheel chair. One would think if she had a request it would be to die, not taken around the world on tour and shown off on national tv in hospital pajamas.

Binkie · 03-23-2005, 06:15 AM

You couldn't prove that she couldn't be cured. Only thing these doctors can do in court, is make suggestions that point either way. They just happened to be out numbered by a wildcard doctor that the court appointed. Majority favored.

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with court rulings on this one. Absolutely nothing. Like the fact that Terri supposedly remarked that she would not want to be kept alive through "artifical means," yet the Judge has ruled that no food or water is to be given to Terri naturally either. How about new evidence and statements from the police that there may have been signs of strangulation in '90 when she collapsed? Or the medical records that were recently released that showed Terri had several fractures in her skull? Maybe the weird case where she somehow broke several bones between the time of collapse and 12 months in the hospital. The push for an investigation into the collapse of Schiavo has categorically been denied and motions to remove Michael as guardian based on newly found medical evidience and testimony that would suggest a clear conflict of interest are refused to be heard.

Actually, the Barnhill remark had nothing to do with the Wolfson report. And as for that second comment that you seem to think was based off of ignorance; your Wolfson report does not explain how the doctor's came to that conclusion. It was not based on whether she was responsive or not. In fact, most found that she was responsive to the environment. It's that she didn't repeat the responses over and over and over again. In speech therapy years and years ago, she was taught to say, "no." But because she doesn't repeat it again and again, people disregard that meant anything. I cling to Florida's defention, as it varies somewhat from Ronald Cranford's defintion, which is what Ronald Cranford's diagnosis was based on in court.

As for the fiance comments, I said not many average American's are aware of that. Showing me a snippet from the Wolfson report where he talks about the Schindlers encouraging Mike to move on isn't even addressing what I was talking about.

And yes, I mocked your "snippets" because I spent an entire post arguing with Wolfson rather than a member of this board.

Part A is all you found of the definition, hmm? How about part B? "An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment." Saying the word, "No" after speech therapy is not a reflex. Because it wasn't said twice though, by some of these doctors' diagnosis, it is just that to them.

Everything you've read must have been the Wolfson report and the 2000 decision (Wolfson's report was based off of that in part, mind you).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4358877.stm
http://www.terrisfight.net/timeline.html
http://www.ascensionhealth.org/ethic...ses/case28.asp
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=43026
http://news.**********/news?tmpl=stor...man_timeline_1
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...a030457S65.DTL
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...t_to_die_case/
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...news-headlines
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...l=chi-news-hed
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/02/27/Ta...he_Schia.shtml
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/134/story_13447_1.html
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=531632&page=1

Binkie · 03-23-2005, 06:25 AM

Right on, Sternn!

Once again you make total sense here. Abortion doctors, who take the lives of young living human beings, are totally comparable to the unborn children they kill. Has nothing to do with the Christian perception of sins or punishment for grave sinning or anything like that... It's just about killing people. I guess that doesn't make much sense to me, but to someone who supports the killing of innocent people in Ireland and justifies it with, "well she was a taddle tale!" sure has the mentality to back that one up in his own mind. :lol:

AlKilyu · 03-23-2005, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Having dated a girl...

Sternn...come on now...we know you are full of shit. We know you never spent a day in the military, but we SURE AS SHIT know you have never dated a girl.

We've seen your pics.

WeaselBoy · 03-23-2005, 02:53 PM

Not to break up the love fest here, but apart from the influx of goth queries due to the school shooting, the next most common google search that brings people to gothic.net is "TERRY SCHIAVO PICTURES", because of this thread.

Not only is this weird, but I just upset a few of my friends because I said it gave me an idea for a new porn site.

"They're persistant! They're Vegitative! And they'd be CUM HUNGRY if they weren't on FEEDING TUBES!"

Yeah, I'm going to hell.

Also: Alkilyu and Sternn, should I make a special board for personal attacks? I think it'd be a hit.

edible_eye · 03-23-2005, 04:17 PM

tstone -

your analogy stunned me. fucking insightful and brilliant. terri schiavo as the grass chewing, chained up goat, unable to effect any direct initiative on her ultimate outcome while the forces of nature, both natural and ill-spawned gather 'round, all hoping to leave the scene with the largest piece.

that was beautiful.

Loy · 03-23-2005, 05:36 PM

Wow....gone for a week or so, and the boards degenerated once again.

And People are taking up sides of an argument....and, sadly, falling into the stances that their prospective political viewpoints dictate them to take. I'm kind of disappointed in the great majority of you here. You've become a bunch of knee-jerk reactionaries, spouting your party lines rather than trying to figure this shit out on your own. Aside from a few, I have yet to hear (or see, in this case) any remarks that haven't been argued and brought up by those farther up your political food chain. I guess one plea I have is for this-think about what you're spouting off before you do so.

As far as this specific case is concerned, I have no feeling one way or another about Terry Schaivo. Sounds cold? Maybe, but the fact of the matter is this-if something is none of my business, I try to keep my self separated from it, and here's how much of a business whether Terry lives or dies is for myself (and all of us)-NONE! Got that? None of our fucking business. Terry is not (as far as I know) related to anybody on this board. For this whole situation to become fodder for public entertainment is quite ludicrous.

See, the other thing most people are forgetting is this-neither Michael nor Terry's family are wrong. Michael's doing what anybody who has ever had to sit and watch somebody they love waste away into nothingness (and please don't throw up the "she's still got a chance" argument.....everybody has a chance at surviving whatever's in their way...hell, look at all those holocaust survivors....but just because the chance is there doesn't mean that it's gonna outweigh the chance of not surviving....or being an empty husk). The Schaivo's are doing what anybody who's loved one are in a fucked up situation-hoping against all hope (and I've had plenty of practice on this one). For people on this board to take up arms against either side is not only sticking their nose in somebody elses business, but their just being unjustifiably malicious.

So as far as this goes-why are we even arguing? I think it goes like this-we live in a world that is increasingly out of our control. For us to argue over death (which is the ultimate equaliser, and thus, ultimately out of our control) is our minute way of trying to control how we will end up checking out. All your arguments boil down to one simple statement- "I am afraid of death because I am unsure how I will go, but if I can take aq stand on anybody elses death, then I'll have a sense of peace for now about the subject". Don't believe me? Please re-read your posts. It's there between the lines.

I guess I'm just asking for you all to be a bit more analytical of yourselves, and a bit more understanding of each other. And to stop using Schaivo to prop up your arguments. It reeks too much of cannibalism, and I doubt anybody here is willing to admit that.

AlKilyu · 03-23-2005, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loy

See, the other thing most people are forgetting is this-neither Michael nor Terry's family are wrong. Michael's doing what anybody who has ever had to sit and watch somebody they love waste away into nothingness (and please don't throw up the "she's still got a chance" argument.....everybody has a chance at surviving whatever's in their way...hell, look at all those holocaust survivors....but just because the chance is there doesn't mean that it's gonna outweigh the chance of not surviving....or being an empty husk). The Schaivo's are doing what anybody who's loved one are in a fucked up situation-hoping against all hope (and I've had plenty of practice on this one). For people on this board to take up arms against either side is not only sticking their nose in somebody elses business, but their just being unjustifiably malicious.

Gotta agree there. Not sure if I fit any of those pegs, since I was sort of taken aback at the begining of this thread when someone said "how disgusted I am at the (mostly) Republicans who are trying to exploit a personal tragedy for political reasons". What the fuck? How did this get political? Why was there a cheap swipe at the political party Binkie, EPS and I associate with? We are all Repulicans, but I know from talking to EPS that politics was never an issue. Tom Harkin last I checked was a Democrat, and it really wasn't a red vs blue issue. So why is it now?

And speaking of EPS and I, we have our own reasons for taking the stance we have. And of course, no matter what you reference, you are going to get the same "well that's totally different".

A verbal agreement couldn't convince the goverment that I was to have complete ownership of a deceased love one's property, even though this relative told OTHER relatives. However, you can use that in something as serious as life versus death?

And all this time has passed, she is still alive, not on a ventalator, fuck I have seen videos where she smiles when she sees someone she recognizes. She did this trick with her eyes back when she was fully herself that used to freak her mom out, and recently she did it. Her father asked "Are you doing that thing with your eye that your mom hates?" she threw her head back and laughed (as best she could) and proceeded to do her "eye trick" and laughed again.

Can she drive a car? No, but neither can a majortity of handicapped. Are they deemed worthless too?

And the jokes...from Sternn's tasteless attention attempt to TStone's Jurrasic Park joke...how the hell is that justifiable?

And as for her parents and the crack "It makes no sense whatsofucking ever to err on the side of life when your family hails from a state that has a death penalty procedure..." what? First off, are people to automatically be associated with their state's politics? And is there not a difference between a couple wanting to keep their daughter alive versus a sick bastard who kidnapped, ***** and murdered an 8 year old girl?

Some of you making these jokes have children, regardless of what you have planned or whatnot, you better than the rest of us can put yourselves in their shoes, having to watch your child suffer to death.

That's whats happening.

Still think it's funny?

edible_eye · 03-23-2005, 07:20 PM

loy, i'm fascinated by your own stance of - i don't have an opinion, so neither should you. look at me, standing here on neutral ground, and look at you discussing something that doesn't affect you.

the funny thing is, in between all of your holier-than-thou chastisement, you make your own points known.

and al, this thing became political as soon as jeb bush, the court system and CONGRESS, for christ's sake, decided to meddle inside a family's decision about a family member's fate. every politician on camera, right now, is making a decision about you, me and anyone else without a living will right before our eyes, whether we want the government involved in our family decisions or not.

and to answer your question - if my wife or children, god forbid, were ever in a situation such as this, i'd be damned to allow john kerry, ted kennedy, mitt romney or any of those puppet-headed fuckwads to step in and wrench all decision making away from me. that's the precedent being set here, if the united states supreme court agrees to hear the case. this is so much bigger than terri schiavo - she's nothing more than an emotion-rousing poster girl. one way or another, she's gonna die. it's inevitable - BUT, the ruling of this case, if it goes to court, will live on to be applied elsewhere.

take your eye off the carrot they're dangling and pay attention to what's going on in the periphery. the government garnering the legal power to make decisions for the citizenry over and above what the immediate family wishes.

AlKilyu · 03-23-2005, 07:31 PM

There is no living will.

Nothing on paper, nothing any kind of media.

Hersey evidence.

The politicians stepping in are doing so as this is an extreme case, and exception to the rule. It's unpartisan, regardless of what anyone hoping to stir shit might say.

edible_eye · 03-23-2005, 07:39 PM

partisan, schmartisan. the government is wrong to step in.

sanctity of marriage. husband and wife. there is nothing written but there is a husband who says his wife would not want to live this way.

what does jeb bush know of her wishes? the court? congress? she's a tool to them. a means to an end, whatever that end might be.

as for extreme cases - there are bodies being kept alive all across the country through extraordinary measures. what's next? the government stepping in to wrench familial control away from all of them? if the legal precedent is set for one, they have the court in their favor to do it again, and again, and again, and again...

Loy · 03-23-2005, 07:49 PM

Al-no, politicians are stepping in to further their politics, nothing more. As far as Terry is concerned, she's an abstraction to test out their beliefs. That's what it's about, and whilst I have a problenm with this in general (see my whole point before this), the problem here is that politicians (drum roll, please) make the rules we live by. And yes they are being partisan about this whole thing.

Also, about living wills.....a lot of people don't have them, but if their wishes are known, then it really shouldn't be a problem. Oral contracts are considered legally applicable. And what constitutes an oral contract is fairly looser than what's considered a written contract.

E_E-I think part of my feelings seeped through, I'll admit it. Hell, I am only human, and can't contain my feelings about things 100%. However, my feelings about this subject are a lot more complex than I'm willing to erudiate through on a "Terry Schaivo" thread. If this thread were called "right-to-die", maybe I'd go deeper. However, it's called "Terry Schaivo", and as I said, what bothers me is people using Terry as a prop for their arguments. I hope THIS came out clearer than anything else.

AlKilyu · 03-23-2005, 07:51 PM

You didn't use layman's terms, you were doing schtick. Speaking of calling a spade a spade.

Quote:

What? Perhaps you missed Bush’s statement, “Err on the side of life,” which he made in concern to the feeding tube being removed, and I was using that in the drawing of a conclusion. Texas being the state in question, and his qualification for the remark he made in concern to the issue. What? What? Yeah, I said that, so fucking what?

I'd ask for an explination, but I honestly could do without another drawn out movie analogy at this point.
Otherwise I'd say that Oregon voted to ban gay marriage, so, anyone from here is not allowed to have an opinon on the subject. Not even those who voted to keep it legal, at least by your argument.

Loy made his point without trying to do a comedy routine. Not sure what chip on my shoulder you're refering to, but I am curious to see a short explination.

AlKilyu · 03-23-2005, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TStone

What’s that you say…phone call for you?

Oh, using something I do against me?

I shall do the same!

No I won't, as I don't feel like typing six paragraphs to tell one joke.

I agree in general that the goverment is not to and should not overstep it's boundries to interfere with people's personal lives. There are exceptions to most rules, IMO. If this kind of thing were to occur on a daily basis? Yeah I'd have issue with that. Even I see the possible rammifications in doing that this one time.

But again, exceptions to the rule as long as they don't become the rule.

edible_eye · 03-23-2005, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loy

E_E-I think part of my feelings seeped through, I'll admit it. Hell, I am only human, and can't contain my feelings about things 100%. However, my feelings about this subject are a lot more complex than I'm willing to erudiate through on a "Terry Schaivo" thread. If this thread were called "right-to-die", maybe I'd go deeper. However, it's called "Terry Schaivo", and as I said, what bothers me is people using Terry as a prop for their arguments. I hope THIS came out clearer than anything else.

it came through just fine, but what i think came through even clearer is - yes, this hits home to many of us for varied reasons and for some, it's very uncomfortable to discuss, either because of fear of death or for whatever other personal reason each of us might harbor. stifling those feelings helps nothing. voicing them relieves pressure.

personally, i think it's healthy and appropriate to dicuss and debate a topic such as this when so much information and such a significant precedent is being voted on right before our eyes. the thread is called "terri schiavo" because she is the poster girl RIGHT NOW for the right-to-die / sanctity of marriage / immediate family outside marriage / government acquiring legal dominion over the individual. that's a pretty amazing feat, all told.

Empty_Purple_Stars · 03-23-2005, 08:29 PM

It's so refreshing to see everyone remembers how to debate with class.

Not so much.

At this point, I think whether its right to let her die or not is irrelevant.

I think the way they are doing it is cruel and inhumane.

Hell, prisoners sentenced to death by lethal injection are made more comfortable physicially than Terri is being made.

Horses are shot when they become lame.

But they are ending her life by starving and dehydrating her to death.

THAT is deplorable.

Move her to a state with right to die laws and euthanize her, at least that would be humane. To starve someone to death for 2 plus weeks, or whatever it ends up being is truly heartless.

Give her a shot, something..

Merely my very sad opinion.

And why is it not possible for people on both sides of this issue to feel passionately about this, and express that without being shitty?

What exactly does being crass accomplish?

There are no right answers to this, and our opinion one way or the other will change nothing.

Hurt friggin feelings are going to linger long after Terri's soul moves on.

Please stop ok.

Just fucking stop.

AlKilyu · 03-23-2005, 08:33 PM

Well said EPS.

And since you are my best friend, I shall honor your request.

edit: I misunderstood Granny's post...she was refering to politicians, not Republicans in general, so my apologies.