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

To: EternalVigilance
You have over and over again tried to impose your judgment of what constitutes 'quality of life', and then immediately used that judgment as a justification for willy-nilly revoking Terri Schiavo's inalienable right to live.

You will not find one place, where I have argued for imposing my judgment of what constitutes the quality of life on anyone else. I have invoked the concept to try to put some of the rant about Terry Schiavo in perspective. The point was not to impose an idea, but to suggest a whole wealth of considerations that some folk seem to be overlooking.

But what a silly term you invoke in response. "Willy nilly revoking" her right to live." Seven years of litigation, determining that she would not have wanted to live as less than a functional human being, is hardly "willy nilly." You are simply providing more and more evidence of your total lack of perspective or proportion here.

499 posted on 05/03/2005 11:57:34 AM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 496 | View Replies ]


To: Ohioan
You will not find one place, where I have argued for imposing my judgment of what constitutes the quality of life on anyone else. I have invoked the concept to try to put some of the rant about Terry Schiavo in perspective. The point was not to impose an idea, but to suggest a whole wealth of considerations that some folk seem to be overlooking.

You sound confused. Did you or didn't you?

But here, let me clear up your confusion:

States' Rights are the rights of the people of each State to govern themselves. They involve the rights of millions of people--people fully functional, not propped up in bed with tubes going into and out of them.

457 posted on 05/03/2005 1:23:41 PM EDT by Ohioan

The issue here was to determine who would speak for that person, since she had lost most of the attributes of human life, including the ability to form a clear intention as to her own future. Why do you feel a need to state the issue in a contorted manner? Why do you imply that she was being denied anything that she could have done for herself? Whether her husband or parents interpretation of her wishes would be sanctioned was certainly an issue. And someone had to make that determination. The Judicial intervention was to protect Terry! The Court weighed the evidence and made a decision.

459 posted on 05/03/2005 1:29:36 PM EDT by Ohioan

Oh, and here's a doozy!

It is not I, who have engaged in moral contortions. When you take umbrage at my description of Terry Schiavo's state, you are refusing to look at the quantity and quality of life. Life and death are not absolutes. (This is discussed at length in my essay, Terry Schiavo.) By any rational standard, at least from the standpoint of defining the characteristics of a human life, Terry was more than half dead.

467 posted on 05/03/2005 1:42:42 PM EDT by Ohioan

There are others...

510 posted on 05/03/2005 12:16:03 PM PDT by EternalVigilance ("We, the people, are the...masters of...the courts...to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 499 | View Replies ]

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