Posted on 06/19/2005 8:19:40 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Well, we know one thing for certain.
Greer didn't bother to meet with Terri, to determine how she felt about being starved and dehydrated.
I wonder what he would have learned from Terri, a few days into her starvation...
"[Nancy Cruzan, three days before her death from starvation]
turned and looked at me and stared at me with
a panicky look, sweating profusely,
and the thought I had was, she was thinking,
‘Oh, here’s a policeman, he’ll help me.’
But we weren’t allowed to do that,"...
Doug Seneker
I don't believe Randal thought such a law would pass...and he's probably right.
"The right to die people care not about the truth of their claims as long as the right people die."
I notice the "right to die" types won't do unto themselves as they would and have done unto others.
But if I don't want to live that way, butt out."
The above, for you, is the crux of the issue, and the motivation for the emotional, irrational stand regarding Terri's case you chose to take, despite the facts.
In otherwords, Terri's case was all about YOU!
Interesting.
"I thrive on it."
Pretty sick.
"I would hate to be in Terri's predicament, and have a hostile former husband, whose neutrality was blatantly compromised, decide that I should be put to death, on the basis of a quick, superficial remark I might have made when I was 22."
Yep.
Sadly, your logic will not persuade the death cultists on this thread.
Are you referring to my questioning why it is that
All were Schiavo's who "suddenly" remembered these remarks seven years AFTER Terri's mysterious collapse and AFTER her husband got the money. All those suddenly remembered remarks were casual, passing comments which were NOT uttered after serious reflection and consideration.
Two other people, one who had NO conflict of interest, testified to casual remarks Terri made which stated the exact OPPOSITE position. You NEVER mention them. Quite disingenuous of you.
"In otherwords, Terri's case was all about YOU!"
You nailed it!
"Are you referring to my questioning why it is that
All three "no tubes for Terri" testifiers had the last name "Schiavo""
I got it the first time.
Everybody knows what you're saying.
If you don't want to live that way - all you have to do is write a Living Will spelling it out. Terri did not have that and there was a 50% chance she did not want to die. And, we should always err on the side of life rather than the side of death.
And, dear friend, money is not the determining factor of life. Sure people will die if they do not get to the hospital, do not buy the drugs. But money must never be part of the criteria whereby a decision is made to terminate a life. (Even though I feel it is wrong to make a decision to terminate a non-dying life)
If money is the determining factor - get rid of all charity hospitals, all medicare, all medicaid. And, if you are a libertarian that will be exactly what you wish.
bump
She made five (5) similar remarks to three people on five different occasions. All three testified under oath, in a court of law, under penalty of perjury, and subject to cross examination, to that effect.
___Basically unconfirmable testimony. The judge simply decided to accept those views. He could have easily ruled another way.
I regard this as a test case for
true conservative values. Anyone who supports the Michael Schiavo position is a not a conservative, in my opinion, because when there is doubt, such a decision should be resolved in favor of life.
That is how disrespectful and irreverent we have become aobut LIFE. That emotionally reactive, casual, superficial comments (that may never have been uttered) which were countered by simlar comments reflecting an opposite opinion, should be the basis for STARVING and DEHYDRATING a person to death.
Who in Florida put these laws on the books? The scientologists? The euthanasists? Are you a member of either of those organizations? I want to know who is given the authority to write laws allowing citizens to be killed.
I will bet there was never any attempt to do as the people wished - these laws were written by someone deciding for them based on the views of that someone.
And, how you would wish to live has absolutely no bearing on what Terri might want.
And we have been told that 1/3 of those with Living Wills find that in 2 years their views have changed. And, if you look at life, you will see that there is a natural instinct to live and it does not depend on the state of life.
My mother was in a nursing home and had said all her life that she did not want to live when she could not take care of herself - over and over. Well, when she could do absolutely nothing for herself and had dementia, I asked what she would want if something happened to her heart. Would she want them to try and save her at her age?
Her answer? "Well, yes, anyone would I guess."
So, your younger view of what you would want when you are 80 has no correlation to what you will actually want at 80 as it denies the fact that man has an ability to adapt to his circumstances same as the animal kingdom does.
You no longer want to go shopping, to go on trips, to flaunt from party to party. It is no longer any fun doing those things. Now, at 80, you enjoy your comforts, the peace of your room and watching your shows.
But, everyone deserves the right to enjoy what they can of each stage of life. God created us with the capability of adaptation to our circumstances.
And the immature wisdom of the young cannot judge the value of a life or what a life will wish in its later years.
yep
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.