Posted on 3/20/2005, 4:01:43 AM by Arthur Wildfire! March
[most statements in quotes by another FReeper, unless name specified]
I agree that opinions can fly everywhere on this, that intelligent people can feel quite justified on either side of this issue. It's amazingly complicated.
It's so easy to get tripped up on this that perhaps it would be best people not judge each other too harshly, even though so much can be revealed about a person from his/her conclusions. We are being tricked into baring our souls, here.
I err toward life. But that's just me. Death is kind of permanent.
But I also found someone who thinks the exact opposite of what I do and articulates those thoughts intelligently. His points are about as smart as I've found yet from the "Death Trolls", as one FReeper called them. I like a challenging debate [my fellow head-basher will be offered a chance for rebuttal, and I should be able to get a response in a few days], so here goes:
"What in God's name is going on here about Terri Schaivo?! Why are there so many Forum threads on this?"
Two reasons:
1. Her family members and at least one of her former guardians insist that she is not as bad off as Judge Greer concluded. They believe her mind is functioning at some level.
2. From a historic perspective, people are concerned about the same thing evolving in Nazi Germany. It's amazingly similar. In Germany, it resulted in a slippery slope. "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
"She's a living brain stem only, there are no higher functions."
That was Boortz's strongest point, after reading court records. But a large percentage of the country is not convinced, especially in the internet. That is why President Bush wants more deliberation before she is starved to death.
"...let her husband fulfill her wishes to rest in peace."
That is our strongest argument. I'm no lawyer, but it seems obvious to me that credibility is everything when someone says something. He asked the judge to trust him with the power to snuff out a human life. Perhaps the Court of Death will conclude that a spouse has that right, simply due to being a spouse. Why should I respect an opinion like that?
What right does a victim's family have if a murderer is 'innocent by reason of insanity'? Nothing. No say. In some cases, that 'innocent' person could wind up in the streets again. Both illogical claims are intertwined: the right of a spouse to [essentially] kill someone innocent despite massive possible reasons not to left hanging, and no rights for victims' families to call for the execution of some sick wacko mass murderer.
Possible reasons left hanging:
A. Her husband reportedly waited a long time before mentioning her wish to die in this instance, and only after he got a large settlement. According to some from the medical field, that is suspicious.
B. He reportedly knows CPR. He did not administer CPR for his wife when she was oxygen-depleted.
C. Her family members and countless others are very distressed about how her treatment and recovery deteriorated after the first three years. They are even distressed about Michael's attitude toward his wife's welfare.
D. Reports that she suffered massive bone fractures [unclear why in my opinion] and possibly even strangulation.
E. A report that she will be cremated despite the family's desire for an autopsy [if the worst happens].
G. Reports that multiple nurses and family members claim she can talk.
[There are other reports I'll leave out to prevent this from getting even larger.]
Combining A-G, would you trust this man with a bankful of cold, hard cash? I wouldn't. Therefore, I would not trust him with anyone's life support. I believe anyone taking his side is in for a long chain of bad surprises in future years.
"If everyone thinks he is only trying to kill her off for the insurance money, then pool your cash and offer it to him as an incentive to divorce her. If he does not take it, then you know he is doing it out of his love and respect for her."
That's what Boortz said yesterday. It's a strong argument if he would waive privacy rights and allow people to thoroughly examine his insurance papers and financial history. He could invite congress to investigate his papers, and risk perjury if he were lying. Then, I would call that a strong argument.
"She has been dead a long time now. A brain stem will let the body breathe and eliminate wastes. From what I have heard, she has no higher brain functions. This is different than someone who is in a coma and has these functions and might one day wake up.... "
Exactly what Boortz said, and worth repeating. But this is my viewpoint. He said, she said. I heard, you heard. Too much dust in the air. I think it is reasonable that congress wants to get a look at her before 'letting' her die. A hospital of congress's choice for a month or two would be better, but take what you can get. There are even reports that she tried to talk.
"Why is my federal government getting involved in this state matter?!"
That is a strong argument. But what's more important? State rights? Or the right to live? The Federal Government doesn't allow lynchings, either. You don't see this as a lynching. I'm unsure. I don't want this possible lynching to be rushed.
"This is NOT what I want out of my Republican leadership, an over extending federal grip on some nonsense about one woman on whom local courts have already judged."
I think the opposite is worse. I would hate a government that lacked compassion and didn't care that people were blocked from offering life support out of their own pockets, unless something in writing says otherwise, or unless there are united family members saying otherwise.
"Calling her body and brain stem to Congress is outrageous to say the least. We have a LOT of problems I need my Republican leadership to concern themselves with, like using the Constitutional option to get judges on the bench, getting more oil, reducing our dependence on foreign oil, a whole host of matters."
I agree that there are more important matters to deal with, and you will find that the Party of Death is attempting to block all that progress: school choice, defunding the NEA, ANWR, an out-of-control court [which could also be the Court of Death'], freedom of speech, et cetera ad nauseum. That's the fundamental difference between the Left and the Right.
In short: Those who tend to treasure life also tend to treasure freedom.
Boortz is brilliant enough to be on the right side in many ways while still not comprehending something outside the realm of the material. That's a very, very rare combination. Most people locked in the material world are tricked into joining the Left.
"Terry Schaivo is not a Federal matter.... having Bush call in Federal Agents to take possession of her body is ludicrous, and if it happened the Republican party would start its downslide back into minority city."
I would rather have Federal police rescue someone than have Federal police drag a little boy off to a third world communist hell hole. [Referring to Rush's great comparison between this and Elian Gonzalez.] Rush said this reflects on how both the parties stand on the Declaration of Independence. The Right to Life [Terri] and Liberty [young Elian].
And I include Waco. Almost all of the same people calling for her starvation showed little concern over Waco. The right to live. Innocent victims. Almost the exact, same political battle lines: Left vs. Right. One side treasures life, and the other doesn't.
Boortz noticed that it's pro-life people trying to save her. But looking at that from my perspective: the side that treasures life also treasures freedom. The side that doesn't treasure life has no regard for property rights, the ability to pursue happiness takes a back seat to sucker fish, dung beetles, rats, flies, trees, other countries, etc. Not much concern about our pursuit of happiness. Leech that pursuit with taxes, regulations, etc. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are an inconvenience to the left [and many corrupt leaders in the right, granted, who may not care about eminent domain, for example.]
"Remember, a lot of average Americans like me are Republican and we are not keen on watching a bunch of zealots with their bibles in their hands trying to make an issue out of a brain stem."
Our most important, inalienable right is the right to live.
One side is cherishing a human life, reluctant to give up hope. Another side is in a hurry to end it, certain there will never be any miracle to save her. I'm not convinced she could ever get any better either, short of a miracle. But if someone is willing to keep her alive, not costing anyone else anything, "hoping for a miracle" as Rush said, I'm inclined to root for them.
Hoping for a miracle is the one lifeline many of us cling to. Without that lifeline, many of us would give up all hope. I do believe in miracles, but not in miracles-on-demand. Too many people seek a miracle-on-demand, and when disappointed, they become cynical. They lose that precious lifeline that makes life so wondrous and magical, and they risk losing something very precious in their inner being.
"Away with this issue you should put. Concentrate on more practical matters at hand if you can."
I kept telling myself that. There's only so much time in the day, and I've placed this issue on the back burner for many months. But sometimes, people rally. Remember those coal miners stuck in that shaft? This is a moment like that. This mine shaft is much, much deeper. The prospects are much more bleak. Perhaps the rescue workers' time would be better spent elsewhere, but you don't realize that you are asking us to kill something inside us-- our soul.
In the battlefield, few things demoralize soldiers more than to leave a fellow war buddy to die. There are many times when an army would be better off to cut it's losses. You might lose ten to save one. But they try anyway. It's a matter of morale, a matter of honor. If that soldier were in trouble and everyone's powerless to help or even be aware of it, he might simply die. That's painful enough. But to simply give up and allow him to die when the soldiers feel hope, that's much more painful. A nation is basically the same way. We are all fighting to live and to help each other live, every day of our lives [most of us, anyway]. What was it the Rangers say? 'No one gets left behind', I think it is.
"Maybe a good thing can come out of this, like pushing for folks to explicitly put in writing their wishes if they should lose their brain functions and/or become dependent on machines. I sure did after this... I don't want my body and brain stem paraded up to Congress someday or become fodder for the media. Go write spell out your wishes today or this could happen to you. And ask yourself one thing, I know if my wife had expressed a desire not to be artificially kept alive, I would do everything I could to try to fulfill her wishes... even if they were not written down."
And if I were ever a congressman [something I'll never be], then I would do everything in my power to defend the weak. If it isn't clear to me that someone wants off life support, I would seek to defend that person's right to live. It would be my duty.
...."because it's in our constitution, to protect the rights of an individual..." Tom Delay, press conference, 3-19-05
Other congress members might believe the courts. I would be respectful of that opinion ... But sorry. I don't expect the Party of Death to understand. I don't expect you to understand. But, I don't trust Today's 'Men in Black' [as Mark Levin calls them]. I've lost all respect for them.
Someone else posted something that I wanted to make a quick response to:
"...and the parents have engaged in tactics that should be prosecuted, to the fullest..."
And can be, if they did, in fact, break the law. But how can they be prosecuted if the evidence is cremated? What you say doesn't help Michael's cause. It helps the parents'. They're all but daring him to sue them or file charges. But if he cremates her body, then he destroys the evidence to ever prosecute them. Why would he do that?
THE 'VAST LIFE-WING CONSPIRACY' AGAINST MICHAEL SCHIAVO [FR Link page]
Handy Search Page for Schiavo Reseach
well done mark.
Makes some very good points.
Thank you! I admire a certain man named Mark but he ain't me. =]
Judge should have stipluated that Michael personally remove the feeding tube.
"Judge should have stipluated that Michael personally remove the feeding tube."
Interesting idea. From what I've read, however, Michael might not have been very gentle about how he removed it. FReegards....
Thanks for the post.
There are some serious problems here that need to be addressed. Michael Schiavo abandoned his wife, Terri, many years ago to cohabit with another woman, and to produce illegitimite children. He has a clear confict of interest here, and if he were a moral man, he would have divorced Terri, but he has not, for he is too greedy to do so.
Schiavo's husband Michael lambasted lawmakers for getting involved.
"For Congress to come in and interfere in a personal family matter is outrageous. They can do it to me, they'll do it to every person in this country. And they should be ashamed of themselves. Leave my wife alone. Leave me alone. Take care of your own families," he said on CBS' Saturday Early Show.
He says to leave his "wife' alone. Which wife? The mother of his children or the one that he wasted the rehab money for ? Sure he wants this left alone! He wants to murder Terri. I object to the newspapers calling Terri a vegetable. How many vegetables do you see that open and close their eyes and smile? Michael Schivao is not a husband in any sense of the word. He is just one more would be murderer, like Scott Peterson. If the wife does not fit their ideas, then murder her.
Yes, this case may set a precedent, and there may be those in the future trying to kill anyone of us in the same manner.
Death is our last enemy.
Glad I could help.
FReegards....
I would not be so upset if Terri had left something in writing and we would know this was truly her wish, but Michael's credibility is just not there and that is what is bothering me. Too many things do not add up and they actually add up more to "foul play". Without the written consent of Terri or any other person in this situation, this is a perfect way for someone who wants to kill their spouse to get away with murder, just by simply stating that "they told me that". Word has it that MS is an abusive, controlling person and that Terri wanted a divorce....this is too much to just let go...all the parents of Terri are asking for is that someone else look at this...and test Terri etc....the fact that Michael won't allow this without court action is alone a reason to be highly suspicious of his motives!
' He says to leave his "wife' alone. Which wife? '
The technical, legalese wife-- not the one he snuggles up with every night. Good point.
"Makes some very good points."
I appreciate that. FReegards....
"Uh, ends any possible discovery of his earlier abuse of her or any possible abuse currently, is one good guess." [re: cremation]
Only logical conclusion I can come up with.
Then there's the question of why he didn't try to save his wife with CPR. Why not? He stood there on some kind of vulture-like death watch? Or he didn't notice that CPR would help?
I'm not sure that he had even started nursing school when she collapsed. The bone scans that reveal past trauma are quite telling though.
Also included in link page:
THE 'VAST LIFE-WING CONSPIRACY' AGAINST MICHAEL SCHIAVO [FR Link page]
Trying to get some important links clustered. FReegards....
You let this one get away.
Here: Everyone has an ultimate authority. Everyone also is born with an innate sense of justice - witness two little kids fighting over a toy. They don't have to be taught that.
Does that ultimate authority find rootage in Scripture, with its commands to avoid murder? Or does it find rootage in the self? If the latter, then self is god, and that is the origin of the "How much will it cost?" argment.
Translation: What's in it for me? How will I be affected?
Implication: There is no God, there's only this life. Take away a little something from me and I'll never get it back.
So, who do YOU want caring for you after your car accident? Zealots with Bibles in their hands or self-serving little god-haters?
You have a special way of thinking. Each of those last three lines make a lot of sense. [I'll have to mull over your first lines. No coffee yet.]
You are right that I can't think of a better doctor to trust than a 'Bible thumper', with the possible exception of various atheists who attempt to compete with Christians in the ethics department. But even competitive atheists are spurred by what? The Bible. They will never admit it, but in another culture they would more likely be spurred by other forces.
And, what really galls those atheists [and agnostics, or soltcore Christians] is they see some phony Christians. It was a big problem in fast food restaurants I'd worked in. Church goers come in and trash the place like few others, wearing their Sunday best.
Atheists and their allies gleefully point moments like that out, but that competitive drive they feel to "outdo" Christians ethically is one of our secret blessings. The more of an example we set, the better some of them get.
They don't realise that we're leading, and they're following. Other cultures would lead them in other directions. I know that as a leader-by-example, I have failed during a certain time in my life. But that doesn't mean I can't lead in some ways today. FReegards....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.