Posted on 12/03/2006 3:03:26 AM PST by 8mmMauser
Theresa Marie Schindler was born to Robert and Mary Schindler on December 3, 1963. She was the first of three children the Schindlers would have.
Terri was a shy, but comical, child who had an affinity for music, animals and the arts. She kept a small circle of friends and was dear to schoolmates, neighboring families and her own extended family.
Following high school, Terri came into her own. She developed a knack for sketching and doodling. She enjoyed outings with her friends. She was an adoptive mother to the family’s dog, Bucky.
Terri attended Catholic School while growing up and remained close to her faith throughout her life.
In 1983, Terri met Michael Schiavo at Bucks County Community College and the two began dating. He was the first romantic interest Terri had.
The couple was engaged within a few months and married a year later at Terri’s church in Southampton, Pa. She was 21.
In 1986, Terri and Michael relocated to Pinellas County, Florida and her parents followed three months later.
In 1990, at the age of 26, Terri suffered a mysterious cardio-respiratory arrest for which no cause has ever been determined. She was diagnosed with hypoxic encephalopathy – neurological injury caused by lack of oxygen to the brain. Terri was placed on a ventilator, but was soon able to breathe on her own and maintain vital function. She remained in a severely compromised neurological state and was provided a PEG tube to ensure the safe delivery of nourishment and hydration.
On March 31, 2005, Terri Schindler Schiavo died of marked dehydration following more than 13 days without nutrition or hydration under the order of Circuit Court Judge, George W. Greer of the Pinellas-Pasco’s Sixth Judicial Court. Terri was 41.
That's the point..JUST SAY IT, say that instead of trying to twist the facts to support your viewpoint? Why shouldn't that be enough for you?
I believe that preserving the life of an innocent person is always ENOUGH. Why should we get into a court battle and have an unconvicted innocent person die because a power-hungry, agenda-driven state judge thinks he can ignore a Congressional subpoena.
Even more interesting is why so many amateur Columbos believe they know more about this than those who actually investigated it?
Everyone followed the law. You don't like the law, fight to change it...everything and anything less is a cop out.
Are you saying that Congress doesn't have the authority to subpoena someone to appear before a committee?
Or are you saying that the Florida state legislature doesn't have the authority to enact legislation?
Because it seems to me that in the end, the "law" was adjudicated by a judge and nowhere in the Consitution of Florida or of the United States of America is any judge empowered with the right to make new law.
You seemed critical of the anti-euthanasia movement.
Let me ask you this, why shouldn't we keep bringing it up?
You can keep bringing it up, of course you can. Free country.
But I am, and will continue to be, critical of anyone who decries the Left's use of Terri's death to advance a social agenda while simultaneously doing the exact same thing.
How is trying to preserve the status quo (i.e. not being allowed to just adjudicate that an innocent person who has never been convicted of anything should be deprived food an water in an effort to kill them) advancing a social agenda?
Are you critical when Roe v. Wade gets brought up?
I don't think I understand your question. Of course every post here is to advance a social agenda of one kind or another.
My only real beef is the hypocrisy of the original post - complaining that the libs use Terri's name to score political points while simltaneously using Terri's name to score political points.
Islamofascists use September 11, 2001 as a recruiting tool; by your logic we would be hypocritical to criticize the Islamofascists for this and at the same time use 9/11 as a reminder to be vigilant.
So, yes, the left is trying to score political points and we on the right are trying to save human life. No hypocracy appears that I can see.
Thank you for the responses, though. It is a good opportunity to bring to light some misconceptions.
8mm
I keep quoting Martin Katz ("The American Thinker"): "We, as a society . . . have not managed, for whatever reason, to permit a mother, deluded or not, to put water onto the lips of her dying child, brain dead or not. . . We have placed ourselves one notch less, above the Nazis . . . we cannot look Mary Schindler, Terri Schiavo's mother, in the eye, and give her one good reason why WE did not allow her to give water to her dying child. . ."
I am clapping my hands. Your post is artwork!
That why I have such a problem with these death vampires that have invaded our posts. I notice that those of their ilk use law to replace the need for morality. They do not understand the concept of just because it is legal doesn't make it moral.
We are countering an effort by the far left and allies to install a program of euthanasia.
Which is a political agenda.
Words mean things. Only leftists try to redefine words - let's not stoop to such tactics.
Supporting the right to life is a "social agenda"?! Both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution uphold the right to life (5th and 14th Amendments). Do you object to them too?
Rebuking a killer while defending the victim's right to life does not make us hypocrites. There is no moral equivalency between a murderer and his victim.
Supporting the right to life is a "social agenda"?!
Yes, it is. And a political one as well.
"Social agenda" is not necessarily a bad thing. There are good agendas and bad ones.
So, doing the right thing is -- so you say -- just as bad as doing evil, because -- so you say -- they are both "political agendas"?
Evidently Orwell's Ministry of Truth had it right after all:
All Big Brother had to do is call them social agendas or political agendas.
Nonsense.
I didn't say that at all. Is a strawman really the best you can offer?
>> Yes, it is. And a political one as well.
Aw, c'mon. We are talking about great numbers of people who have different hearts, minds, motives and goals. To lump them together in some simplistic category is intellectually lazy, sloppy, or dishonest (or all three).
Neither is it true to life to suppose that anyone acts out an allegiance to some "agenda." I certainly do not do my work here for a social or political agenda. I do it because I see it as my moral responsibility. We are all moved by our values and ideals, not by agendas.
That is the unavoidable logic of your statement. You were using moral equivalence to equate 8mmMauser's work with that of the Left -- because they were both (according to you) social agendas. There is no other way to interpret what you said.
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.