Terry Schiavo
- Thread starter Rick van Opbergen
- Start date
I was watching the news the other night.
They had a bit on her. And the fight against letting her die.
Then right after they have the story of the guy who killed that little girl and how he's headed for DEATH ROW.
And I thought how bizaar. They won't let a women end her own suffering, but they're quite content to kill for revenge. Not for mercy. Just revenge.
They had a bit on her. And the fight against letting her die.
Then right after they have the story of the guy who killed that little girl and how he's headed for DEATH ROW.
And I thought how bizaar. They won't let a women end her own suffering, but they're quite content to kill for revenge. Not for mercy. Just revenge.
I have the same feeling. But I also understand that the parents don't want to let her go. It's one of those moral issues just on the edge, in my opinion. Both sides have fairly good arguments. I do think however that Bush and his Republican Party should have backed out. This is a family issue, not a political one.
Well Bush governs as if he is the second coming....... It's just a sad situation. I really do not know what to think. I hope I am never put into that position.
All of the ethical considerations concerning Terri are just smoke and mirrors to hide the fact that the right-wingers are denying her husband his right to decide what's best for Terri.
The religious right is pretty quick to jump on the traditional definition of marriage when it suits them...
Well this is it baby!! This is the definition of marriage in action...
...sometimes difficult decisions will have to be made to protect the dignity of, and in the best interest of your loved ones...
The religious right is pretty quick to jump on the traditional definition of marriage when it suits them...
Well this is it baby!! This is the definition of marriage in action...
...sometimes difficult decisions will have to be made to protect the dignity of, and in the best interest of your loved ones...
well...if we are to believe the husband, Terri did make her wishes known...but apparently that's not enough for those right-wing whackos...
Didn't "W's" brother in Florida pass a law last year to stop him from removing the feeding tube? I unfortunatly watched Fox "so called" news this morning and the clowns on that channel. I tell you, they had people on saying she was getting better and she knows what is going on, doctors claiming she can recover etc... and that her husband is some sort of evil menance, I tell you those right wing religious nutcases are whats wrong with America....
She's not "starving to death" as the right wing would have you believe. She's brain dead so she wont feel anything. This is how cancer patients die when theres nothing left to do for the them. When her parents say she recognizes certain things the doctors say it's just an automatic response. If you believe in God then you should believe he wanted to take her a long time ago. They didn't have a feeding tube in the Bible times.
why the congress and the president got involved is so stupid. once again, the ol' right wing jumped on this one. yeah, she should be allowed to die, as she should of, years ago. what's with the parents here? why would they not just let her go.....i find that really sad.
The parent's story realy doesn't make much sense. They say the husband just wants Terri out of the way. Well, they've offered to take her and he's said no. In other words, she could have been out of the way for him.
Obviously he has a reason for putting himself through all this...her request that she not be forced to live like that.
Obviously he has a reason for putting himself through all this...her request that she not be forced to live like that.
Somebody down there offered the husband 1 million dollars to give up his rights to Terry and he still said no.
my understanding is that the parents are being strongly supported by the right wing and money is not an object in this case for them. anyone listen to 'the current' this morning? if not, you can hear a repeat of the broadcast tomorrow. the first half hour was devoted to this case and the interviews were extremely informative.
It's all tied up with anti-abortion issue. It's also being used to test if the Bush regime is powerful enough to undermine the power of the courts.
The involvement of the radical religious right has little to do with Terri Schiavo and everything to do with the larger political goals of those who would force their religious beliefs on others.
The involvement of the radical religious right has little to do with Terri Schiavo and everything to do with the larger political goals of those who would force their religious beliefs on others.
Reverend Blair is bringing up an important fact, it is really tied up with the anti-abortion issue.
This is what I understand in this case:
Husband VS Family
The family point of view is about THEIR values and THEIR principles. Which is legitimate.
And the husband point of view is about HIS WIFE'S dignity and for HER quality of life. Really legitimate too.
But what I find hard to believe is that there is people saying that the values, the principles of a person/group can overid the rights of others to live and die in dignity.
I really believe that the husband loves his wife and he's doing what's right FOR HER, and not what's right for the people around her.
And I can't understand people who thinks there is a better place out there when you die, but they just won't let that poor girl access it.
Set aside all the moral issues, I think that this case will set a precedent in the history of the US. The complexity of the issue is a big reason that religion is not always right.
There is the fight between the 2 clans about who should decide of Schiavo's faith. And there is the fact that we not just unplug her and she dies instantly, like most cases. We are talking about letting someone starving to death BECAUSE we can't help her to die in dignity.
I really hope that all the exploitation of this woman's dignity by the media, will change something. That it will cleary show that religion benefit only those who believe in it, than those who are affected by it.
This is what I understand in this case:
Husband VS Family
The family point of view is about THEIR values and THEIR principles. Which is legitimate.
And the husband point of view is about HIS WIFE'S dignity and for HER quality of life. Really legitimate too.
But what I find hard to believe is that there is people saying that the values, the principles of a person/group can overid the rights of others to live and die in dignity.
I really believe that the husband loves his wife and he's doing what's right FOR HER, and not what's right for the people around her.
And I can't understand people who thinks there is a better place out there when you die, but they just won't let that poor girl access it.
Set aside all the moral issues, I think that this case will set a precedent in the history of the US. The complexity of the issue is a big reason that religion is not always right.
There is the fight between the 2 clans about who should decide of Schiavo's faith. And there is the fact that we not just unplug her and she dies instantly, like most cases. We are talking about letting someone starving to death BECAUSE we can't help her to die in dignity.
I really hope that all the exploitation of this woman's dignity by the media, will change something. That it will cleary show that religion benefit only those who believe in it, than those who are affected by it.
RB,
For the hundredth time, there is no such thing as anti-abortion movement. It is a pro-life movement that values all human life.
Sometimes it is a difficult situation and this is obviously one with alot of emotion.
Given that we do not know for certain what the woman's wishes are shouldn't we assume that she would want to live??
How is this case any different than the Latimer case?? Who decides when an individual is no longer living??? What criteria do we use???
For the hundredth time, there is no such thing as anti-abortion movement. It is a pro-life movement that values all human life.
Sometimes it is a difficult situation and this is obviously one with alot of emotion.
Given that we do not know for certain what the woman's wishes are shouldn't we assume that she would want to live??
How is this case any different than the Latimer case?? Who decides when an individual is no longer living??? What criteria do we use???
Re: RE: Terry Schiavo
I understand that it is really complex.
I'll make a point, even if I know that it can be logically contested and can lead to all kind of debates, but:
To let her "live" costs 100,000$ per year, now for 15 years. Do you know how many lives around the world you could have saved with this money (helping third world)? Even saves lives in their own country by putting all this money into studying the neuro-vegetative state?
I really know we can't evoke the money part as a reason to let a person die, but since we know that money can save lives, is it absurd to a least taking the time to think about it?
I really think that any human being that have a heart is ready to give up his life, in this case where there is no chance of turning back, to save more lifes, even just one.
tibear said:
I understand that it is really complex.
I'll make a point, even if I know that it can be logically contested and can lead to all kind of debates, but:
To let her "live" costs 100,000$ per year, now for 15 years. Do you know how many lives around the world you could have saved with this money (helping third world)? Even saves lives in their own country by putting all this money into studying the neuro-vegetative state?
I really know we can't evoke the money part as a reason to let a person die, but since we know that money can save lives, is it absurd to a least taking the time to think about it?
I really think that any human being that have a heart is ready to give up his life, in this case where there is no chance of turning back, to save more lifes, even just one.
Re: RE: Terry Schiavo
Good point there. I don't really know much about mariage, because the definition changes when Georgie hears voices in his sleep anyway, but it this the real definition?
When a family let their kids getting maried, do the husband or wife is the real tutor of this person if something like that happens? I need the real definition of mariage.
Twila said:
Good point there. I don't really know much about mariage, because the definition changes when Georgie hears voices in his sleep anyway, but it this the real definition?
When a family let their kids getting maried, do the husband or wife is the real tutor of this person if something like that happens? I need the real definition of mariage.