Skip to comments.Freep this Poll: Was it right for the judge to allow Terri Schiavo's feeding tube be removed?
Posted on 10/15/2003 2:45:35 PM PDT by SkoozEdited on 04/13/2004 1:41:16 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
click here to read article
Have you gone to the website and seen the clips of this so-called "turnip" sitting up and smiling and moving her eyes in response to commands?
Really? Its no differnet than nursing a helpless baby. But I dare not ask your views on such "burdens" to families.
Actually there is zero evidence that she wanted this. It was the word of her parents and everyone who knew her well verses the word of her abusive husband who has everything to gain and nothing to lose by her death.
|10/16/2003 - Updated 05:11:42 PM ET|
Another sad sign of the Bambification of the Republican party. It has become almost as preposterous as PETA.
The poll is carefully worded and physically positioned to get "yes" votes. People always want to do what's right. Here, unless you read carefully, "WAS IT RIGHT" was the question and the "yes" -- positioned on top -- was the quick, instinctive, nice answer.
The question also diverted the real substance of the question (should Terri Schiavo be starved to death) to the trivial question of what "the judge" should "allow." Again, of course we presume the judge will do the right thing.
Had the question been phrased, "Was it wrong...," respondents would at least have had to think harder.
Had the question dropped the whole "right/wrong" wording and found more nearly neutral phrasing (not easy, to be sure), the vote should have reflected traditional American decency, generosity and moral values. It would have overwhelmingly rejected killing Terri Schiavo.
We Americans have always helped the poor, disabled and helpless. When someone is hurt, we pour out our hearts and money. When there is natural disaster in some foreign land, we send aid, and we do it by airlift. If someone is hungry, we feed him. If many are hungry, we set up soup kitchens and feed them all.
My daughter, a special ed teacher, has devoted her life to helping profoundly handicapped kids. Most of the children have had no hope of a normal life, but she helps anyway. We all would. We do NOT execute the weak and sick and hurt among us because they're inconvenient.
I also emailed Fox because its newreaders have used the word "coma" all day long!
This is not a "right to die" case. This is murder being committed by a husband via the apparatus of the state.
|2280 Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.
|2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
|336 From its beginning until death, human life is surrounded by their watchful care and intercession. "Beside each believer stands an angel as protector and shepherd leading him to life." Already here on earth the Christian life shares by faith in the blessed company of angels and men united in God.
|2367 Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God. "Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility."
|1524 In addition to the Anointing of the Sick, the Church offers those who are about to leave this life the Eucharist as viaticum. Communion in the body and blood of Christ, received at this moment of "passing over" to the Father, has a particular significance and importance. It is the seed of eternal life and the power of resurrection, according to the words of the Lord: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." The sacrament of Christ once dead and now risen, the Eucharist is here the sacrament of passing over from death to life, from this world to the Father.
|2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."
"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."
|2288 Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God. We must take reasonable care of them, taking into account the needs of others and the common good.
Concern for the health of its citizens requires that society help in the attainment of living-conditions that allow them to grow and reach maturity: food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education, employment, and social assistance.
|1007 Death is the end of earthly life. Our lives are measured by time, in the course of which we change, grow old and, as with all living beings on earth, death seems like the normal end of life. That aspect of death lends urgency to our lives: remembering our mortality helps us realize that we have only a limited time in which to bring our lives to fulfillment:
|1641 "By reason of their state in life and of their order, [Christian spouses] have their own special gifts in the People of God." This grace proper to the sacrament of Matrimony is intended to perfect the couple's love and to strengthen their indissoluble unity. By this grace they "help one another to attain holiness in their married life and in welcoming and educating their children."
I can say the same of you
Do you have any proof, not gossip or hearsay, but proof to go with your accusation of murder?
Tonight, UNSPUN with AnnaZ and Guest Hostess DIOTIMA!
featuring an Interview with
Victor Davis Hanson
Author of Mexifornia
Not necessary in the American Judicial System.
The husband is presumed innocent unless you have evidence to the contrary. He does not have to prove it.
The husband is presumed to be testifying truthfully about her wishes, unless impeached by evidence that he lies.
The entire onus of proof is on those who dispute his legal right to carry out his wifes wishes.
Absent any proof of dishonesty capable of impeaching the husbands testimony, his word is all the proof our legal system requires.
You later required proof for the assertions of myself and others that her husband wishes her to die. You demand proof from others, but refuse to provide any for your statements.
I have no "proof," for my assertions, just overwhelming circumstantial evidence. Your position lacks even that.
Obviously your circumstantial evidence was not found to be overwhelming by a court of competent jurisdiction.
My position requires no proof other than the husbands word. In our system his word is true unless proven false.
I am not missing the point, you are.
If the woman cannot speak coherently for herself, then her husband has that right.
If you don't like the law, work to change it, but don't bitch about it being fairly enforced.
And it is being fairly enforced.
This is the same argument as the Abortion fight.
Acording to the laws of the United States, abortion is not murder.
Acording to the laws of the United States, this woman is being allowed to die, not being kiled.
If you do not agree, work to change the laws, that is the Conservative way.
Don't whine and ask Jeb Bush for a special exception, that is the Liberal way.
It is a simple staement of fact. Terri is not being kept alive by machines.
Regardless of where on stands on the "right to die" issue, the matter is almost always one of the patient being kept alive artificially by machines. If the machines are unplugged, the patient dies, long before the person would starve to death.
In this case, the patient is living on her own, without the help of machines. She is being killed by removal of her food supply.
Enormous (and quite obvious) difference.
Nonsense. She is free to eat at any time.
The feeding tube (a machine, albeit a simple one) is all that is being removed.