Irvine511 said:
what's been breathtaking in this discussion is your refusal to listen to science, either before or after the physical death of Terri Schiavo.
GOOD GRIEF, IRVINE!
I will say this AGAIN. I am, not talking about AFTER THE DEATH OF TERRI SCHIAVO at all. The entire point of my argument here was that Danforth made a misrepresentation of the motivation of those of us who wished the feeding tube to remain. He said it was for power reasons, and I said that is a misrepresentation, because for most of us, it was about life. Period. Now, there were indeed neuro-specialtists who said she was not a vegetable. I listened to those. Whether they were wrong or not HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CONVERSATION, as again, I AM ONLY SPEAKING ABOUT THE MOTIVATION of people like me.
I have typed this in LARGE CAPITAL LETTERS so that you will not be able to miss them. But I'm sure that won't help, because I have made these points over and over again, but you and melon keep talking about WHAT THE AUTOPSY REVEALED, WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.
Irvine511 said:
all your scientific "there might have been hope" arguments have been revealed to be nothing more than wishful thinking, just like the diagnosis via videotape you and Sen. Frist appear to be comfortable making. we now know her vision centers of the brain were dead, so she couldn't see a thing, not a baloon, not the face of her parents, nothing.
.
There you go again, talking about what was revealed AFTER SHE DIED. You said "we now know". Maybe so, but that wasn't available before she died. There was no certainty about the vision centers being dead BEFORE SHE DIED, and I don't even remember that anyone even speculated that they were, so once again, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS
Irvine511 said:
i suppose what's really going on here is that you've chosen to be manipulated, you've chosen to listen only to those who support what you want to know.
No, what's going on here is that you and Melon REFUSE to address my argument which ONCE AGAIN, was that Danforth misrepresented the motivation of those of us who wanted to keep her on the feeding tube.
And as far as "choosing whom to listen to", your side did the same thing. You chose to listen to the doctors that were on your side even though there were other specialists who disaagreed.
Irvine511 said:
and you've chosen to deamonize, through cheap innuendo and lame conspiracy theory.
Demonize? I don't have to demonize him. He's done a good job of that with his own actions. Cheap innuendo? I made no innuendo. I said it plainly; he shacked up with and had three kids with another woman while still married to his wife. That is called adultery.
Lame conspiracy theory - are you talking about the insurance money theory? I'm not the only one who has said that. What other reason could he have possibly had for not divorcing her since he obviously didn't love her enough to stay by her side, but continued to seek the termination of her life? Go ahead, give me one plausible reason. And don't try that "no divorce/Catholicism" thing on me like melon did, because as I told him, adultery is against Roman Catholic beliefs also, but that didn't seem to bother him. If he wasn't going to stay by her isde until the end and remian faithful to her, he should have set her free by divorcing her. But no, he had to keep control, even though he was screwing another woman.
Irvine511 said:
let her body rest in peace.
I didn't bring this subject up, Irvine. In fact, I haven't brought it up since she died. John Danforth's commentary, which was posted here, brought it up. Someone asked me what I thought, and I told him.