Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Still Waiting
Dakota Voice ^ | 1/29/2007 | Carrie K. Hutchens

Posted on 02/02/2007 3:49:53 AM PST by 8mmMauser

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 1,701-1,707 next last
To: All; wagglebee
Further to the post on those who judge the Pope, we have this from wagglebee...

The Vatican (LifeNews.com) -- Catholics in Italy celebrated their Day of Life on Sunday and Pope Benedict XVI urged more than 50,000 people gathered for a special speech to protect both life and family from attack. He called on Catholics to oppose both abortion and euthanasia.

The pontiff spoke to about 50,000 people gathered in St. Peter’s Square and he called the family the "cradle of life.”

He said the "family is the natural environment for the birth and education of children and, therefore, for ensuring the future of the entire human family."

Pope Tells Catholics to Oppose Abortion, Euthanasia in Pro-Life Speech

8mm

141 posted on 02/07/2007 3:50:55 AM PST by 8mmMauser (Jezu ufam tobie...Jesus I trust in Thee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: 8mmMauser
If we read kiddy editorials, we learn that John Stuart Mill would not agree with the Pope. However, Mr. Mill passed from this vale of tears in 1873. One hopes he has learned which way is up by now.
142 posted on 02/07/2007 5:03:55 AM PST by T'wit (Visitors: the good news is, lots of people have agreed with you. The bad news is, they were Nazis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: 8mmMauser

I am sure the grandma is right in saying the ban on family visits is harmful.


143 posted on 02/07/2007 5:06:41 AM PST by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Jezebelle

Your statement best fits the facts.


144 posted on 02/07/2007 5:08:13 AM PST by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: 8mmMauser; T'wit
Let me see if I can make anything out of this moron's logic:

While it is indeed the pope's prerogative to take a stance on such divisive issues, the purportedly infallible Benedict is undoubtedly mistaken on the issue of euthanasia National Socialist eugenics. Without question, euthanazing gassing a pain-wrought patient subhuman worthless eater who is not going to recover ever going to benefit the Master Race is an act of genuine human compassion devotion to the Motherland that should not be prohibited.

So, I guess this moron just figures that everyone who doesn't meet his standards needs to be killed.

145 posted on 02/07/2007 5:10:27 AM PST by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: 8mmMauser
Stay warm, Helen! I got a note from my sister reporting that the schools up there were closed. The northwoods is geared for winter life, so school closure is very unusual. This was due to subzero temperatures, not a blizzard. They didn't want the kids standing outside waiting for the school bus.

Boy, it be right nippy up north!

146 posted on 02/07/2007 5:45:02 AM PST by T'wit (Visitors: the good news is, lots of people have agreed with you. The bad news is, they were Nazis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

It wasn't just the Pope. God was wrong too, y'know, telling us not to kill folks. What does He know. He probably didn't even go to college.


147 posted on 02/07/2007 5:46:35 AM PST by T'wit (Visitors: the good news is, lots of people have agreed with you. The bad news is, they were Nazis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: T'wit

Well, a lot of our visitors should be happy because there is a decent chance that both parties nominees for president next year will be in favor of killing the "inconvenient" whether they be in the womb or in a hospital bed.


148 posted on 02/07/2007 5:53:14 AM PST by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Followed by a law to kill inconvenient Republicans.


149 posted on 02/07/2007 6:02:58 AM PST by T'wit (Visitors: the good news is, lots of people have agreed with you. The bad news is, they were Nazis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Jezebelle; Dante3
This is my answer to the riddle, from two posts in an earlier thread. In considerable measure, it is constructed from the strange internal traumas revealed by Terri's bone scan. It also incorporates all the ER test results and reports that I've found (a lot). I'm still calling upon visitors or anyone else to refute any part of it. So far, no takers.

- - - - -

... I don't believe he tried to kill her. I believe he came home steaming mad and meant to punish her. They'd had a ferocious argument that day. He was still fuming and meant to continue the fight.

As best I can reconstruct it, he dragged her out of bed when he got home. She would have been asleep, and could have offered no resistance in any case -- he's twice her size and he had her from behind. He wrestled her down a few feet away in the hallway, outside the bedroom door, and got on her back. His knees pinned her down. He had one knee in the small of her back (which caused a compression fracture at L1 plus fractures at rear of ribs -- both of which are very unusual injuries) and the other knee on her right leg (leaving a bone bruise on right femur; another odd injury). Her head was sideways. His weight was so great she couldn't breathe. Neither could she speak, to beg him to stop. She did struggle -- that was shown by a condition called lactic acidosis in her blood tests = violent exertion in the absence of oxygen. She tried desperately to draw a breath but could not. The struggle could not have lasted long, though. Unconsciousness comes within seconds, death soon after if this position is not relieved. It is called "positional asphyxia" and it shows up mostly in police restraint cases where the police get too heavy holding a criminal down. It kills. Michael stayed atop her too long. Then he panicked and went to pieces. When the medics finally did get there, Terri was in full cardiac arrest and needed seven defibs. Incidentally, the famous acute hypokalemia that showed up in Terri's blood testing is characteristic of trauma, not of bulimia.

- - - - -

One little afterword, if I may. We have visitors who haven't come to grips with the fact that domestic violence is the #1 cause of injury and death in young women. That makes it the first thing to suspect when trying to explain how a healthy young woman, age 26, probably asleep, ended up face down on the hallway floor, in cardiac arrest and near death, right after her husband came home late one Saturday night.

Nobody has ever explained how this happened, and medical testing found no natural causes. The autopsy report ruled out bulimia and that was Michael's only alibi. I ask our visitors for their assistance solving this mystery, but only one has even replied and that poster had no facts at all.

I also put my own reconstruction out for comment and nobody has yet refuted any point on it. The injuries I mention and the abnormal blood tests are all from evidentiary medical records. The fight between Terri and Michael was conceded by both sides of the family and was known to friends, one of whom urged Terri to spend the night with her for safety sake. Terri might be alive and well today, had she accepted. (Btw, Michael lied about the fight to the police when they arrived. He told them that everything was untroubled and rosy between him and Terri.)

It's theory, no more, no less. I'll amend the thing if someone can show me better, and I'll scrap it if someone can disprove it. If you find any holes in it, fire away. But for the moment, it's the only theory out there that fits ALL the known medical facts. That's extremely difficult to do. In fact, nobody offers any other theory at all any more.

So, visitors, refute it if you can. Suggest something better if you can. Whatever did happen that night must color our view of everything else that occurred. If it turns out that Michael himself caused Terri's injuries, one cannot still sympathize with his efforts later to finish her off. After you know Michael injured her in the first place, you cannot go on believing his whopper that he's only killing Terri because she wants to die. Neither can one go on applauding "due process" when you realize it covering up a murder.

- - - - -

150 posted on 02/07/2007 7:45:36 AM PST by T'wit (Liberalism is in every particular the attitude and tactics of insufferable little girls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: 8mmMauser
Record Levels Of Organ And Tissue Donations Reached In Ontario

~ snip ~

Organ Donation after Cardiac Death (DCD) has become an option in Ontario with nine successful cases resulting in saving 25 lives since its introduction. DCD has become an option for families of patients who have decided to withdraw life support after a physician has determined that there is no long-term prognosis for recovery and for those patients who do not meet the criteria for neurological death (brain dead). Improved medications and surgical techniques have dramatically improved the outcomes for recipients of DCD organs.

Keep in mind that the organs must remain oxygenated to keep them fresh. Which means these living patients are kept alive on respirators while their organs are being removed. The nine successful cases refers to nine people whose organs were removed while they were still alive. That resulted in saving 25 lives that were worth something, so society made a profit.

151 posted on 02/07/2007 1:12:33 PM PST by BykrBayb (Be careful what you ask for, and even more careful what you demand. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: T'wit

I see the wisdom of your theory over mine, and I agree with your position on the case generally. It's still shocking to me that people actually think that, whatever happened to her, it was right for him to seek her death through the court - with her money - to shut her up, be rid of her, and "move on" with his new family.


152 posted on 02/07/2007 2:43:28 PM PST by Jezebelle (Our tax dollars are paying the ACLU to sue the Christ out of us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Jezebelle
>> It's still shocking to me that people actually think that, whatever happened to her, it was right for him to seek her death through the court - with her money - to shut her up, be rid of her, and "move on" with his new family.

Me too. One of those who said it didn't matter how Terri was injured was (are you ready for this?) -- Judge Greer.

153 posted on 02/07/2007 3:08:53 PM PST by T'wit (Liberalism is in every particular the attitude and tactics of insufferable little girls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
They describe it as if it were a bad thing, doctors "refusing" to pull the plug, etc. Maybe a trend is starting...

Many doctors feel they have no ethical obligation to inform patients about controversial medical practices or to make referrals to doctors who think differently, according to a survey of physicians by University of Chicago researchers.

Snip...

"Some doctors see it as a comfort to the patient," he said, "but others may see it as taking an active role in ending the patient's life." The thorniest question, he said, is whether a patient should continue to receive food and water intravenously after sedation. The uproar that ensued in 2005 when doctors removed the feeding tube of Terri Schiavo, a brain-damaged woman from Florida, evidenced the strong feelings surrounding the issue.

Under a Maryland law known as the "conscience clause," doctors, nurses and pharmacists are not required to perform or participate in a medical procedure they find objectionable. Also, they are not obligated to refer a patient to another health care professional.

Doctors saying no on moral grounds... Survey says many withhold information, referrals for abortion, terminal sedation

8mm


154 posted on 02/08/2007 3:23:43 AM PST by 8mmMauser (Jezu ufam tobie...Jesus I trust in Thee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: 8mmMauser
They don't seem to realize Terri was not dying when the plug was pulled...

Our family decided to take the process a step further. We also chose to create a living trust and living wills. Our living wills ensure that our desires are followed concerning health care and life support. Instead of putting the burden on your child or spouse, make your desire known in advance. For example, how long would you want to be held on life support? I am reminded of the Terri Schiavo case in which the colliding desires of the husband and parents led to year of court battles over the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube. I don't want that to happen.

Each family's situation is different so make sure you talk to someone who has the legal knowledge. I've heard that the non-biological parent in a family doesn't automatically have the right to be the guardian for the family's children if the biological parent dies. This is another compelling reason to create the proper legal documents in advance.

These days, with our advanced technology, it doesn't have to be difficult to prepare your family with these documents. One easy way is through www.legalzoom.com – an online legal service center, where you answer questions online and attorneys create legal documents for you. Once the documents arrive in the mail, both you and witnesses need to sign the papers before you have them notarized.

Mommy Tales: Planning for end of life issues is a parental responsibility

8mm

155 posted on 02/08/2007 3:36:07 AM PST by 8mmMauser (Jezu ufam tobie...Jesus I trust in Thee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: All; flixxx; TheSarce
Thanks, TheSarce, for pinging to this thread by flixxx on the subject of the post above, #154.

Background There is a heated debate about whether health professionals may refuse to provide treatments to which they object on moral grounds. It is important to understand how physicians think about their ethical rights and obligations when such conflicts emerge in clinical practice.

Religion, Conscience, and Controversial Clinical Practices

8mm

156 posted on 02/08/2007 3:48:26 AM PST by 8mmMauser (Jezu ufam tobie...Jesus I trust in Thee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: 8mmMauser
>> Many doctors feel they have no ethical obligation to inform patients about controversial medical practices...

Scarcely any reporters feel they have an ethical obligation to inform readers about controversial issues. On the contrary, nearly all of the delight in lying through their teeth. Remind me why anyone would trust a reporter?

157 posted on 02/08/2007 3:50:04 AM PST by T'wit (Liberalism is in every particular the attitude and tactics of insufferable little girls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: All; Jim Robinson; Salvation; Lesforlife; BykrBayb; T'wit; floriduh voter; narses
Thanks, Salvation, for the ping to the powerful Jim Robinson thread on abortion...

In a partial-birth abortion, the abortionist pulls a living baby feet-first out of the womb and into the birth canal (vagina), except for the head, which the abortionist purposely keeps lodged just inside the cervix (the opening to the womb). The abortionist punctures the base of the baby’s skull with a surgical instrument, such as a long surgical scissors or a pointed hollow metal tube called a trochar. He then inserts a catheter (tube) into the wound, and removes the baby's brain with a powerful suction machine. This causes the skull to collapse, after which the abortionist completes the delivery of the now-dead baby.

The January 2003 Gallup poll found that 70% favored and 25% opposed “a law that would make it illegal to perform a specific abortion procedure conducted in the last six months of pregnancy known as ‘partial birth abortion,’ except in cases necessary to save the life of the mother.” (margin of error +/- 3%)

No, Republicans are NOT okay with ripping human babies limb from limb!

8mm

158 posted on 02/08/2007 4:01:50 AM PST by 8mmMauser (Jezu ufam tobie...Jesus I trust in Thee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: 8mmMauser
>> I am reminded of the Terri Schiavo case in which the colliding desires of the husband and parents led to year of court battles over the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube.

"Colliding desires" -- interesting. The legal fiction is, it was Terri's wish to die. If Michael did it out of his own desire, it was murder.

159 posted on 02/08/2007 4:01:57 AM PST by T'wit (Liberalism is in every particular the attitude and tactics of insufferable little girls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: T'wit

What a great effort the lefties make to soften murder to the point it is spreadable...


160 posted on 02/08/2007 4:06:32 AM PST by 8mmMauser (Jezu ufam tobie...Jesus I trust in Thee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 1,701-1,707 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson