MERGED: Terri Schiavo

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
drhark said:


Why do you assume I have religious beliefs? That argument's a cop out.

I believe that human value lies in it's very essence.

Others on the opposing side of this issue believe the value of human life is determined by one's ability or potential or "viability".

We disagree. This is not a religious argument even though you're making it one.

Freedom of choice? Is that kind of like the right to privacy?

The word "choice" is so vague. Freedom of choice means absolutely nothing and has no basis in law.

This case raises many difficult questions and as I said before we need to answer them or the "other side" answers them for us.

:up:

I get SO sick of being labeled as religious and basing all my beliefs on that instead of thinking for myself. I'm not really all that religious, I mean, I'm a believer, but I don't even go to church. My beliefs are based simply on human decency, and right and wrong! It's like some people here can't believe or respect that anyone could think that way, they have to be brainwashed by Pat Robertson or something :rolleyes:There are some people here who can't ever address our opinions as us actually having MINDS and hearts, it always has to be 'you right-to-lifers' or some other label, as if everyone with that opinion read it on the 700 club or in a mailer from Jerry Falwell and is following a crowd and not thinking for ourselves :| t's actually very insulting. :(
 
Last edited:
cardosino said:


My like or dislike of Bush isn't relevant to the fact that on the one hand he pontificates on the sanctity of life, and on the other he starts wars base don lives killign hundreds oif thousands, supports the NRA, snr hundreds to Death row, and wants to cut back medicaid.

All of those are facts. let's not let fact enter into emotional partisan rhetoric though eh ?

Find me a previous leader of the free world whose words and actions could not ever be construed as hypocritical and I'll transfer the contents of my bank account to yours immediately.
 
drhark said:


Find me a previous leader of the free world whose words and actions could not ever be construed as hypocritical and I'll transfer the contents of my bank account to yours immediately.

How much do you have ?
 
drhark said:


emotional partisan rhetoric like this?

"Bush, far from a real man"

Yup, backed up with facts.

As opposed to just saying you're a (insert politiocian's name here)-hater and leaving it at that.

Quoting out of context is so kindergarten-debate.......
 
drhark said:


and I don't think keeping her in the state you (and most others)believe she's in makes a damn bit of difference to her either. So what harm will keeping her alive do to her?

That's some of the worse logic I've ever heard.
 
theyoonaboramer said:
They should stop feeding her, but leave the tube in just to fake everyone out. Then they should hook up a Stephen Hawking computer and have her say "It's cool everyone, I'm alive! Gotcha!"

How tasteful. Now go away and grow up, and maybe find out a bit about the people you're talking to before you start behaving like a brainless idiot. If you don't know what I'm talking about, have a look 2 posts beneath yours.
 
Last edited:
Yes I know. I just don't care. I'm not in a particularly self-restrained mood. I admire anyone who can keep a level head when seeing moronic comments that hit a little too close to home. I'm not going to pretend that I'm capable of that right now. But thanks for the pointer.

bcrt2000 said:
all i can think of is Miracle Drug right now... :sad:
That's all I've been thinking of for months.

deep said:

give me a break

she is in a permanent veg. state

he has moved on

Her parents have not.


Hardly surprising, seeing as this is their daughter.
 
Last edited:
I was responding to this:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Originally posted by Irvine511



on this we fully agree.

(so why scale back medicade? why cut taxes?)

Terri, however, has been virtually dead for 15 years. i don't think keeping her in this state is making anyone happy other than her parents who can't seem to let her go.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Keeping her in this state isn't making anyone happy but her parents. OK.

Is keeping her in this state making anyone unhappy? Probably Michael. Terri? no.

So if you want to argue about who's happy or unhappy, I'd argue the parents are far more unhappy to see Terri die than Michael would be to have Terri live.

Now I wouldn't myself argue on that basis but the point was made so I saw fit to refute it.

Hope that's more logical for you
 
To give you an idea of how bad the infotainment cesspool has become, a Fox News morning show invited Crossing Over TV psychic John Edward in studio to talk about it.

John Edward: I do believe that the soul, the consciousness, can communicate when they're in a state, whether it be a mental incapacitated person, someone who's in a coma. It's a consciousness, and the soul has a living consciousness.

Host: So she may not be able to talk with her brain, but she's ...

Edward: But she's clear on what's going on. And I can tell you she's definitely clear on what's happening now around her.

As if that weren't unbalanced enough, Fox News presented the charlatan split-panel with looping video footage of Schiavo.
 
ROME (AFP) - The Roman Catholic Church's chief doctrinal enforcer, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, hit out at the "arrogance" of mankind that thought it could conquer death through its own efforts.
"In doing this, we hope to conquer death by our own efforts, yet in reality we are profoundly debasing human dignity."
Ratzinger, in the meditations at the Way of the Cross ceremony at Rome's Colosseum, also turned the spotlight on the church itself.
"Should we not also think of how much Christ suffers in his own church," he asked. "How much filth there is in the church, and even among those who, in the priesthood, ought to belong entirely to him. How much pride, how much self-complacency."

The prelate compared the church to a "boat about to sink".

"The soiled garments and face of your church throw us into confusion. Yet it we ourselves who have soiled them. It is we who betray you time and again!"

The cardinal also scathingly attacked world leaders and politicians for their arrogance.

"How often are the symbols of power, borne by the great ones of this world, an affront to truth, to justice and to the dignity of man! How many times are their pomps and their lofty words nothing but grandiose lies, a parody of their solemn obligation to serve the common good," he said.

"Justice is trampled underfoot by weakness, cowardice and fear of the diktat of the ruling mindset. The quiet voice of conscience is drowned out by the cries of the crowd. Evil draws its power from indecision and concern for what other people think".
 
deep said:
ROME (AFP) - The Roman Catholic Church's chief doctrinal enforcer, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, hit out at the "arrogance" of mankind that thought it could conquer death through its own efforts.
"In doing this, we hope to conquer death by our own efforts, yet in reality we are profoundly debasing human dignity."
Ratzinger, in the meditations at the Way of the Cross ceremony at Rome's Colosseum, also turned the spotlight on the church itself.
"Should we not also think of how much Christ suffers in his own church," he asked. "How much filth there is in the church, and even among those who, in the priesthood, ought to belong entirely to him. How much pride, how much self-complacency."

The prelate compared the church to a "boat about to sink".

"The soiled garments and face of your church throw us into confusion. Yet it we ourselves who have soiled them. It is we who betray you time and again!"

The cardinal also scathingly attacked world leaders and politicians for their arrogance.

"How often are the symbols of power, borne by the great ones of this world, an affront to truth, to justice and to the dignity of man! How many times are their pomps and their lofty words nothing but grandiose lies, a parody of their solemn obligation to serve the common good," he said.

"Justice is trampled underfoot by weakness, cowardice and fear of the diktat of the ruling mindset. The quiet voice of conscience is drowned out by the cries of the crowd. Evil draws its power from indecision and concern for what other people think".

Yet another example of "mythic speech." If I wanted to, I could probably say all those things about the Catholic Church, and, more specifically, Cardinal Ratzinger. Sounds like a great description of the GOP, except I know he's not talking about them at all.

Melon
 
cloning


but

umbilical cords for 41 year olds in veg states =
the arrogance of mankind that thought it could conquer death through its own efforts
 
deep said:
cloning


but

umbilical cords for 41 year olds =
the arrogance of mankind that thought it could conquer death through its own efforts

Ask old Cardinal Rat and I'm sure he'd do a 180-degree turn and say that it's an "affront" to unplug Terri Shiavo.

I wish I could still find respect for my old church.

Melon
 
melon said:


Yet another example of "mythic speech." If I wanted to, I could probably say all those things about the Catholic Church, and, more specifically, Cardinal Ratzinger. Sounds like a great description of the GOP, except I know he's not talking about them at all.

Melon

Cardinal Ratzinger would be a good "ghostwriter" for U2 lyrics
 
U2Kitten said:


:up:

I get SO sick of being labeled as religious and basing all my beliefs on that instead of thinking for myself. I'm not really all that religious, I mean, I'm a believer, but I don't even go to church. My beliefs are based simply on human decency, and right and wrong! It's like some people here can't believe or respect that anyone could think that way, they have to be brainwashed by Pat Robertson or something :rolleyes:There are some people here who can't ever address our opinions as us actually having MINDS and hearts, it always has to be 'you right-to-lifers' or some other label, as if everyone with that opinion read it on the 700 club or in a mailer from Jerry Falwell and is following a crowd and not thinking for ourselves :| t's actually very insulting. :(

But I didn't label anyone as religious. Nor did I bash anyones beliefs. We may agree on what is right in this situation or we may disagree. As you pointed out it is an individual choice.

Choices on matters of life or death are what I labeled religious choices. That of course includes my choices. I was arguing that these must always be individual decisions. What is right for me in Terri's situation may be different than what is right for you. That is true for all people of course.

Just as you would never give that right to "the other side", neither would I.

Since we are a nation of laws, it stands to reason (for me) that we should follow them to the letter. If the laws are stupid or wrong, we should change them. 15 years ago and still today, the spouse of those found to be in a 'vegetative' state determined the action to take.

Terri made the concious decision to marry her husband. Legally, they were from then on responsible for each other in such horrible situations.

If you are taking the position that your beliefs should outweigh the choices incumbent in the choice to marry, then that potentially removes my choice to make such a decision in likewise circumstances.

The only thing I have ever concluded is that it is an individual choice that none of our beliefs are relevant to in this case.

How this case plays out is relevant to all of us.
 
drhark said:


Keeping her in this state isn't making anyone happy but her parents. OK.

Is keeping her in this state making anyone unhappy? Probably Michael. Terri? no.

So if you want to argue about who's happy or unhappy, I'd argue the parents are far more unhappy to see Terri die than Michael would be to have Terri live.

Now I wouldn't myself argue on that basis but the point was made so I saw fit to refute it.

Hope that's more logical for you

I know exactly what you were responding to, but given the circumstance you paint above all you are doing is feeding some organs so her parents have a placebo. That makes no sense. First they have no say legally. Two if you do believe in souls you are being very cruel to one. I just see no logic in this argument.

Your others had a little more ground.
 
jay canseco said:
But I didn't label anyone as religious. Nor did I bash anyones beliefs. We may agree on what is right in this situation or we may disagree. As you pointed out it is an individual choice.

Choices on matters of life or death are what I labeled religious choices. That of course includes my choices. I was arguing that these must always be individual decisions. What is right for me in Terri's situation may be different than what is right for you. That is true for all people of course.

Just as you would never give that right to "the other side", neither would I.

Since we are a nation of laws, it stands to reason (for me) that we should follow them to the letter. If the laws are stupid or wrong, we should change them. 15 years ago and still today, the spouse of those found to be in a 'vegetative' state determined the action to take.

Terri made the concious decision to marry her husband. Legally, they were from then on responsible for each other in such horrible situations.

If you are taking the position that your beliefs should outweigh the choices incumbent in the choice to marry, then that potentially removes my choice to make such a decision in likewise circumstances.

The only thing I have ever concluded is that it is an individual choice that none of our beliefs are relevant to in this case.

How this case plays out is relevant to all of us.
If that's the fact of the matter, I thank you for clarifying it.

In my point of view, it seems as though the Michael Shiavo crowd is making it a religious issue. I'd rather we all stopped and gave it some rational thought before jumping on the "it's only the radical right religious nuts who want to keep Terri alive" bandwagon.
 
jay canseco said:


But I didn't label anyone as religious. Nor did I bash anyones beliefs. We may agree on what is right in this situation or we may disagree.


I wasn't really talking about you :shifty:

As you pointed out it is an individual choice.

That wasn't me, it was the person whose post I quoted. I don't believe life should be left up to individual 'choice', but that's a topic you don't want to get me started on :censored:
 
i would spend my whole life with the person i love hanged on a hospital bed, michael schiavo surely suffered a lot during these hard 15 years and he will never stop to suffer. it would give more sense to my life seeing a little smile of a loved person lying in such conditions, if she must die, she must do it naturally, if there are machines which can take her alive, she must live, this is the very wrong way to end a so sad story. these 15 years will be cancelled, all the love michael shared with terri wil be shattered
 
babyman said:
i would spend my whole life with the person i love hanged on a hospital bed, michael schiavo surely suffered a lot during these hard 15 years and he will never stop to suffer. it would give more sense to my life seeing a little smile of a loved person lying in such conditions, if she must die, she must do it naturally, if there are machines which can take her alive, she must live, this is the very wrong way to end a so sad story. these 15 years will be cancelled, all the love michael shared with terri wil be shattered

That's the thing. Terri's smile isn't really a smile of happiness. It's a smile of reflex. Michael knows that.

It just doesn't make sense to me how anyone can think that keeping her on a feeding tube as a vegetable, trapping her soul (if you believe in souls), and taking up a hospital bed from someone else who may be more deserving (ie, actually has a chance to recover).

The people who are fighting so hard to keep Terri alive are the ones who are expecting her to miraculously recover someday, like this is something someone can just wake up from, like a coma. I am loathe to say it, but it appears to me that the extreme majority of the people fighting to keep her alive are the ones who are totally ignorant of the facts in this case. They're thinking emotionally instead of rationally and logically.
 
MrBrau1 said:
Now her family is saying she just said "I want to live." Translated from "AAAAA WWWWWAAAAA."

From CNN:

"'She managed to articulate the first two vowel sounds, first articulating AHHHHHHH and then virtually screaming WAAAAAAAA,' the motion said."

Talk about grasping at straws. :rolleyes:
 
nbcrusader said:


What many are striving for is a principled way to deal with irriversable conditions that require ongoing, persistent care. It may be easy to say "let this one die". But it should be based on principles that, when consistently applied, produce results that are just.

Thank you nbcrusader, you said it in a way I wish I had.

I've read 'almost' all of this thread and I keep coming back to the one statement that expressed what I truly feel.
I wasn't trying to do anything other than explain some ofwhat I went through.
We must not loose site of what this is all about...
This issue is so important that it deserves all this incredible debate.

and back at cha - U2Kitten :hug:
 
DaveC said:


From CNN:

"'She managed to articulate the first two vowel sounds, first articulating AHHHHHHH and then virtually screaming WAAAAAAAA,' the motion said."

Talk about grasping at straws. :rolleyes:

If an autistic boy is capable of no more than these utterances, is it fair for the parents to withhold food?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom