Go to Why can't I sue the whole country?
- Add a comment
- Go to THOSE WHO WISH TO KEEP TERRI ALIVE ARE NOT THINKING ABOUT HER RIGHTS
aye there's the point
the definition of life
let's see what's alive
toads are alive
snails are alive
ebola virus is alive
these all are life.
so is it a sin if we kill one?
or allow it to die?
Yes, Terri Schiavo is alive.
but . . . on what level?
greater than . . .
a virus?
a bacterium?
a snail?
what?
is she human?
it's good to keep humans alive if possible.
posted by
Xeno-x
on March 29, 2005 at 3:37 PM
| link to this | reply
amdg
Then why are you making that determination for others? The courts have done no such thing. That is a conservative load of BS. The courts saw what was presented to them and decided that all the evidence pointed to Terri not wishing to live in such a condition. Without her there to say it one way or the others, that is all they have to go on. They never said that all people in such a state should all be allowed to die against there wishes (Although if we were a humane and caring society, we would be loving enough to our loved ones and show them respect and allow them to die). All they said was that believed Terri would wish to die. You wish to take away people's right to decided what level of life they wish to live with. You wish to force your ideas of a very poor value of life as just being alive onto others. You wish to force someone to be tortured in her own body (If what you say is true and she is still in there somewhere) which is about the most evil of actions a person can do to another.
You claim you are trying to protect your rights here, but no one is trying to take any rights away from anyone. You wish to believe this, but all the evidence points to Terri having said she would wish to die if ever in such a state. There is no evidence to counter this. Her rights are being protected for her cruel, selfish parents who have very openly admitted that this is not about Terri's rights, but about their desires.
posted by
kooka_lives
on March 29, 2005 at 3:29 PM
| link to this | reply
I am a sick twisted person who wants there to be a definition of life
so that really sick twisted people don't end up making that determination for me or others.
posted by
AnCatubh
on March 29, 2005 at 12:19 PM
| link to this | reply
amdg
It is documented that all those who spoke about for keeping Terri alive, none of them said they knew for a fact. All of them said 'This is what I think Terri would want.' While her husband and other's who seemed to have known her better all said 'Terri said she would never wish to live in such a state.' There is a big difference there you see.
Looking through all that her parents keep saying I get the strange feeling they knew nothing about their daughter, either that or they were really, really naive and clueless.
They did not know about her bulimia. They had no clue as to what her beefs were. Then they put in the accusations about her husband beating her, which would have had to have been happening at their house since they were all living together at the time. If he was abusing her and they had knowledge of it then, it should have come up well before it did. If they did not have knowledge of it and it was happening under their noses, that says a lot about them right there.
Honestly everything I have seen tells me that there is something more going on over keeping her alive than either side is telling us. It may be seem kind of power play the two sides have been in for some time, it may have to do with money (Although some of that has been disproven due to the husband not accepting money to give up his rights to her) or it may be something else. All I know is looking at the facts that are out there, it is very clear to me that he parents are not doing this out of love, but are just using public opinion to try and get their way.
But I am throwing that all to the side. I do no care about the true motive form either side of this case. Their motives and desires are about as unimportant as can be. I look at what is best for Terri. If her mind has already moved on and all that is left in an empty shell, then it is a waste to keep the body alive and serves no purpose. (Since I am not heartless, I must assume that this first possibility is to be true, since the other possibility is jut too horrible to imagine being the true one). The other possibility is that Terri's mind is still in there and has been trapped for the last fifteen years and it would; be inhuman and just pure evil to keep her alive in such a cruel torture.
I can not see any argument that works to justify keeping her body alive, if her mind is there or not. What is best for her is to let her die anyway you look at it. I would rather error on the side of justice and what is best before life
Go hunt down a copy of 'Johnny Got His Gun' and watch that. Would wish to keep the main character alive just so he is alive, rather than allow him to die? I get the feeling you might be sick minded enough to think that was living.
posted by
kooka_lives
on March 26, 2005 at 3:24 PM
| link to this | reply
This Morning I Woke Up And My Cat Said
"RRRrrrrrow; yowwwwwww."
I interpreted this as "There was no such thing as the Big Bang and the universe has always existed in one form or another. There are parallel universes that humanity simply hasn't detected yet and String Theory will explain everything to you folks someday. Oh, and we animals really can't sense impending earthquakes, Tsunamis, or asteroids crashing into the planet. We can just run faster than you feeble creatures."
Or maybe she was just telling me to put food in her bowl?
I report. You decide.
DM
posted by
Dennison..Mann
on March 26, 2005 at 10:37 AM
| link to this | reply
she has family AND friends who contend differently than what
her husband says. The Law has always erred on the side of life, however "meaningless" you may think it is.
posted by
AnCatubh
on March 26, 2005 at 10:14 AM
| link to this | reply
Good post Kooka.
Are living wills legal in the states?
This is more bizaare fear of death that we talked about a few posts back.
I do believe some of these folks would like to see Terri's body shackled onto her poor husband.
Never mind 16 years I have told my wife and kids to let me go fast.
I never said it but I want them to get on with their lives.
Manboy
posted by
man-boy
on March 25, 2005 at 7:37 PM
| link to this | reply
RSM
It is less hearsay that she would wish to die than it is she would wish to live. So far all thing, beyond a reasonable doubt, point ot her wishing to NOT live in such a condition. It would be more a violation of her rights to assume that she said no such thing, because there is absolutely no proof at all to back that up. There is proof that she said she would rather die.
The whole idea of witnesses just goes over your head I guess. We have actual people who knew terri saying she had many times made it clear she would never wish to live in a vegetative state. That is kind of like a person saying 'I saw that guy stab the victim'. Actual hearsay would be 'Well my buddy who knew her sister's friend says that she said it to her second cousin's hears stylist'. Sorry, but direct witnesses to the event are not really hearsay, unless you really wish to destroy the credibility of every witness to ever take the stand and step on the whole idea of our justice system and trials since the beginning of such trials.
People have proven she said it, that is why this happening. No one was able to prove she had not said this.
Right now you are condemning her to inhuman and cruel imprisonment, worst than any punishment would ever dream of dishing out to the worst criminals we see (Even though I would back up such punishment, since it might actually get to them and be more effective than our present system). Unless you can prove that she would desire such harsh and inhuman treatment as being forced to be trapped in her own body against her will, it only seems logical that is all evidence that is out there points to her having desired to never live that way, then we need to be kind other and allow her to die, since all evidence points to that being her desire.
You seem to just want to listen to her parents who have out right told us they have no idea what their daughter would desire, which says to me that really did not know her. My parents already know that I would never be idiotic enough to wish to live in such a state. My parents also ,love me and would never be selfish enough to force me to suffer so just so that hey can live in a twisted state of denial. I am sorry you are defending the sick, twisted and very selfish actions of her parents, who have admitted very openly that they are not doing it for Terri, btu for themselves. They care not what is best for Terri, they just are too self absorbed to care for anything more than they one in a million chance that they might get their daughter back, even if it is really not their daughter, but some vegetable that has her body.
Sorry, but I guess I am just too concerned with Terri and what she must be going through to think about her parents and their selfish desires. I would much rather think that Terri has been freed of her torture and has been given a chance to peacefully move on. But. unlike you, I care about the person in question, not the family's selfish needs.
posted by
kooka_lives
on March 25, 2005 at 7:26 PM
| link to this | reply
Well,
by all means let's go by hearsay. And all this time I thought in a court of law you had to have proof or at least reasonable doubt. here we have a case decided on hearsay. Well, Michael Schiavo, if you say she said it then it must be. All bow to Michael Schiavo! What kind of crap is that? There is nothing written, no proof, and apparently there is no doubt somehow that she said this. How is that? Do we now just go by hearsay? I have seen criminals everyday get numerous stays and appeals. Terri gets none because of hearsay. I want anyone out there to prove she has said this. How do you know she said it? Because Michael said so?! Thinking of her rights? You are an idiot!
posted by
RedStatesMan
on March 25, 2005 at 7:01 PM
| link to this | reply