Pinellas Park police officers on Saturday arrest David Vogel, in back of vehicle, James "Bo " Gritz, center, and Leon Richie for trying to bring Terri Schiavo holy communion. (Photo: AP)
Posted on 03/20/2005 6:06:29 PM PST by Former Military Chick
Yeah it is "Thou shalt not murder". Most people aren't really aware of the difference so I gave the familiar version. This case easily fits the definition of murder.
The House votes!
I have had endless discussion using reason and logic like you employ here but to no avail.
Everyone here seems to know that all the parties involved are part of one giant conspiracy to off her because they either stand to get some money or this furthers the culture of death agenda.
Howlin, do not apply logic you will only get called names.
She's not being kept alive artifically, she needs only food and water to live, just like the rest of us.
That's really dumb. I'd say the fault is in the callers but obviously you hate this guy so the burden is on him to change his number.Amazing
Hear, hear, you hit the nail on the head. Giving more powers to the federal government makes a bad situation worse.
I'd have him charged with the crimes he's committed for sure, but I wouldn't advocate his murder any more than I would assent to his wife's murder.
Easily? When there is at least some evidence that that is what she wanted? And when it is traditionally left up to the spouse to make such decisions? I wouldn't call that easy.
THAT'S offensive and *scary*.
Thanks for the ping
That brings up a question I have not seen adressed before.
Many people say he should just divorce her but the question is can he?
Do both parties need to agree to a divorce or can it be done under some abandonment clause?
Right after he got the settlement of the malpractice suit. She hasn't had therapy for IIRC atleast seven years and possibly more. I remember when that came out in some of the newspapers. But time flies. I didn't mean to ignore or sound snotty when I wrote you, its just so frustrating to see how people react.
There is no evidence that she would want to be euthanized. The word of her husband - seven years after the fact - is not credible, especially given his contradictory statements during the insurance trial, and the clear ulterior motives he has - even assuming he is not responsible for her condition - to do away with her. The fact of his adultery alone is more than sufficient to remove his guardianship over her. If his oath before God and man - his wedding vow - is so clearly broken, what reason is there to believe his testimony on her wishes?
If you or anyone else for that matter has proof of such crimes than I emplore you to bring those to the authorities or you are an accomplice to said crimes.
Or is this another case where Micheal the doctors the lawyers and judges are all in cahoots to keep this proof from seeing the light of day?
Under the Bible, unless a woman cheated, every man who divorces is guilty of adultery if he remarries, are you willing to go that far? And as far as his motives, do you really think he fears she'll recover? At this point, what other motive could he possibly have other than to carry out what he thinks she wanted? He could slip away into the fog very easily.
Yet this article, which is FAR from evenhanded (just as many of the other articles on the other view have been far from evenhanded) brings up several thoughts:
Interesting, isn't it, how the family's Catholicism is brought up. Being a Catholic is useful to journalists when they want to prevent someone from becoming a judge, or to use as a wedge, as in this piece. Catholics are portrayed as these alien creatures whose strange voodoo-like rights are objects of ridicule such as here, where her parents are portrayed as wackos who are against "normal" mercy killing.
The issue of a legal document deliniating these "strong" beliefs--if they are that strong, then put them in writing, don't just tell one person about them. Let's be honest, this doesn't seem, from all available evidence, like something Terri felt so strongly about that she told lots of people about it. Don't YOUR friends know your strongest-held beliefs about life and death?
The people who think not having it in writing is somehow a silly little issue--I guess you must feel that way about entering the country illegally, too, right? I mean, it's just about having a piece of paper? Same with getting permission from an underage girl's parents for an abortion--just a piece of paper. Or voting for President--I MEANT to vote on election day, but you can count my vote now, right? It's JUST a piece of paper. And which is more important, a vote on election day or having me starved to death?
The compromise on this issue is already available: Get it in writing. She didn't. So her life should be preserved.
That's how things work in a nation of laws--methods are agreed upon, and when followed, the expected result should be enforced by law. If not, then sorry, but we don't rule by "Well, it's YOU, so we'll do it YOUR way because, well, you feel like it."
No. Sorry. The law says you CAN be allowed to starve to death, but there is ONE tiny, not very complicated thing you must do first: Get it in writing so there is no way someone can mess with your wishes.
She didn't fulfill the accepted procedure for having herself starved to death. So in order to err on the side of NOT KILLING SOMEONE, we should keep her alive.
It's really that simple: If you can't put these incredibly intense wishes of yours in writing, then how incredibly intensely could you have felt about them?
You know, this precisely was the argument used by those who opposed medical innovation and vaccinations (like in Catholic Quebec at the beginning of the 20th century).
The fact remains Terri wouldn't have survived were it not for ARTIFICAL care (like a feeding tube directly into her stomach).
Sometimes, we have to face facts that the right thing to do, no matter how painful, is "pull the plug." Otherwise, where does one stop? If life extension instead of quality of life is the primary priority of medical ethicists; why don't we just hook everyone up to machines and keep everyone alive artificially?
Sadly, Terri's gone. All that's left is the shell of her body.
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.