Posted on 02/03/2008 10:18:11 AM PST by wagglebee
Easy, as in yes/no.
WB has a long, and nearly unbroken, history of misrepresenting my postions, and dancing rather than giving a yes or no.
I’m pleased to see that he stepped right up and answered with a yes.
BTW, what is your own answer to that question?
You supported the starvation of Terri Schiavo, correct?
It is not new that your kind try to make other posters appear to agree with your kind.
As I pointed out before, that is not the issue in this case. True, I posted the Nazi poster, but that was as a response to you and William bringing up the cost concern.
Since feeding and hydration are not extreme medical measures, or even medical treatment, removing them is murder, not a case of letting someone go. If something is murder, it doesn't matter how much money it will save.
That was my first exposure to the situtation, and I hadn’t clarified my position even in my own mind, but as I recall everything my position was this:
Those who were in a position to care for her, financially and otherwise, should be the folks who make that decision. The courts should butt out.
I think I said as much back then.
That’s neither a yes nor a no, as I think the decision should be made by the family.
What is your answer to my post #175?
Chuckle, couldn't refain, I see.
What is your response to my post #175?
Dude, you are so far behind the curve! What we really need to do is start starving people on SSI disability. It will save millions and might even keep the system solvent for a few years longer.
After all, if starving someone to death is wrong in some circumstances and right in other circumstances that involve money, then let's go ahead and use that to our advantage.
Well, here is your opportunity, did Michael Schivo have the right to kill her or not when her family wanted to take care of her?
Am I to take that as a $0?
That was long time ago, so help refresh my memory.
Did he have legal custody, or did the family have custody?
You are not hard to figure out. You wanted her dead.
That was an easy question, I thought, for someone who seems to be involved in this movement.
Evidently not.
Let me help you out. IIRC, and I may be wrong becasue it was long ago, her husband had legal custody. The family wanted legal custody, but couldn’t get it, for reasons I’ve forgotten.
Since the person who had legal custody had the legal right to discontinue whatever means were keeping her alive (murder as you call it), he was in a position to do so.
If the above was correct, my answer is yes.
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you could read. You see, since we're discussing whether something would be murder or not and we aren't discussing whether medical care costs a lot, I figured you'd be able to grasp that I'm talking about murder, not money. I mean, when I said twice that pulling the tube was murder and it doesn't matter what money is saved via murder, I figured you'd get that.
But hey, I'm game. Your question has multiple answers:
1. Actually, once your insurance topped out you would receive funds from Medicaid, so as a taxpayer I would be helping subsidize your medical care. You're welcome.
2. I guess I could come up and smother you with a pillow if that would help. Since it would save money, it wouldn't be murder, right?
3. Let me check my bank account...I might be able to spare 60,000 reichsmarks.
What I should add is this: It is VERY important who it is you are giving you own life and death decisions to.
If the above was correct, my answer is yes.
Thank you for your answer.
Especially when an adulterous husband who hoped to get a million five if he killed her after the settlement. Every statement you make makes it sound more Michael Schisvoist all the time.
Thank you, I can read, but since a priceless life may be on the line, specifics are in order.
Lack of specifics was how Terry’s situtation came to be.
Please, do check you bank account, since #3 as I understand it, has $$$ caps involved, and my life is priceless, or so I’ve read here.
#2 was surprising, even I wouldn’t be so directly involved.
How much is 60,000 reichmarks?
I have three questions.
1. Do you bill your health insurance provider when you stop at McDonalds for a Big Mac, fries and a soda? If not, why not?
2. Do you really think a court should have regarded this person...
Michael Schiavo has been acting so weird he makes Hunter S. Thompson look like Joe Friday. If we believe his court testimony, the timeline goes like this: Some years prior to Terri’s collapse she told him that she would never want to “live on a machine” or be a burden. Yet in 1992, his lawyer told a jury Michael might need enough money to take care of her for another half-century. Michael proclaimed from the witness stand that he would become a nurse and take care of her “for the rest of [his] life.” By 1993, he had stopped rehabilitation (which was showing promising results), had put a “Do not resuscitate” order in her chart, tried to deny her antibiotic treatment for an infection, melted down her wedding ring and euthanized her cats. In other words, he ignored what she said about being a burden, then swore in court to take on the burden, but decided a few months later it was too much of a burden.
...as a fit guardian, especially after he was in a common law marriage with another woman while still married to Terri?
3. You've asked how much money we pro-lifers wil donate if you have "an episode" and end up in the hospital with a $1,000,000 bill. Well, if you have an episode and end up on a feeding tube, would you be willing to have Michael Schiavo make your medical decisions, or some other person who has exhibited the same behavior toward you that he exhibited toward his late wife?
Really? Why not, if it's a noble and fiscally responsible gesture?
How much is 60,000 reichmarks?
Apparently it's too much, in your estimation, after all, German people, that's your money!
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.