GOP should change the party name

[Gunny]

First off, the other day you made a sarcastic comment that you expected me to know was sarcastic, so I "blushed." Never again. You were new, your comments were so erratic that one could not be sure where you stood. Your acerbic comments since makes me question where you stand still.

Yurt ....

The comment regarding knowing one another was made to smarterthanyou in direct response to a comment from him. It was not directed at you. We know each other from a different board.

You miss the point with "cruel and unusual punishment." It is not that the dog has thought like you or I, it is that YOU have thought like the common man (person). The reason we use syringes on those in death row is because it is believed to be less painful. In Terri's case, she would most likely be let go in a manner like this. Trust me, she would not be hanged or shot. To suppose otherwise is stupid.

Starving your dog is given punitive action because YOU must make a conscious effort to not feed your dog. If not concious, then you are insane. You then go on to state that the dog is not capable of "consious" thought, yet starving them is cruel. I think you mean to say that how can we get punished for starving dogs and not punished for starving humans. This case is different.

Here, you have a woman in a vegatative state. In all liklihood has little, if any, cognitive awareness. She lives on tubes. Tubes. She is fed thought tubes. She is given water though tubes. Tubes. How does she take car of her other daily needs? If one pulls the feeding tube, would she know? Would she suffer?

Hard to say. But I have been in a hosptital for five days. For the first 2 I had no clue what was happening. I still have dreams of some gorgeous nurse.... JK. In all liklihood, she would not feel a thing. She may even welcome it.

I do not miss the point of cruel and unusual punishment at all. Vegetative state, cognizant or not, you are assuming that she would not feel pain the same as the rest of us. The analogy with dog is that even though it has no cognitive will, if you injure it, it will cry out in pain IF CAPABLE.

Quote:
My point is simply that those of you clamouring for this woman's death need to grow some damned stones and euthenize her since she has been deemed unworthy of life in your mind

Stones? If you have those, then you should see a doctor, quick!

LOL ... and you take issue with MY humor?

I do not deem her life unworthy. Do you? If she told you that she did not want the plug, would keep it in her because you have the "stones" man? Would you?

I do not deem her life unworthy. My only stance on this issue has been concerning the cruel manner in which she is being purposefully starved to death by a conscious effort. As in the case you relate with the dog, food is available and being withheld.

There are a whole lot of issues in play here.

One, I disagree with the judge's ruling. Her involuntary life functions are not being maintained artificially. Her receipt of nutrition is because she does not possess the ability to swallow.

Based on the rationale used here, we can just not feed infants or anyone else unable to feed themselves and it would be consistent with this ruling.

Two ....

While I disagree with the court's ruling, I also disagree with the court usurping the husband's right as legal guardian to make the decision. While I disagree with his decision personally, it is his responsibility; therefore, his right to make it. The parents have managedto drag this out for years with legal interference that I do not believe should have been entertained by the court.

Three ...

I completely disagree with the Federal legislature interfering with the judiciary in a specific case, and one that should be handled at the local level. The Supreme Court already declined to intervene.

Four ....

You may possess an over-abundance of faith your fellow man, but I do not. If this is all about principle for Mr Hubby, I'd be far more willing to accept his word that he is acting in the best interest of his wife if he were to renounce any claim to the money won on HER behalf. Just more of my cynical thinking come to the fore.

 

[musicman]

Do you know what Terri's status is as of now? Or the status of the House action?

 

[musicman]

Oops - just caught Kathianne's post, Smarter. Thanks anyway.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Yurt ....

The comment regarding knowing one another was made to smarterthanyou in direct response to a comment from him. It was not directed at you. We know each other from a different board.

then why the guessing games?

I do not deem her life unworthy. My only stance on this issue has been concerning the cruel manner in which she is being purposefully starved to death by a conscious effort. As in the case you relate with the dog, food is available and being withheld.

currently, it is illegal to employ more humane means.

One, I disagree with the judge's ruling. Her involuntary life functions are not being maintained artificially. Her receipt of nutrition is because she does not possess the ability to swallow.

Based on the rationale used here, we can just not feed infants or anyone else unable to feed themselves and it would be consistent with this ruling.

that is a completely bogus argument and completely intellectually dishonest. theres a HUGE difference between a developing infant and a severely brain damaged adult with no hope of recovery.

Two ....

While I disagree with the court's ruling, I also disagree with the court usurping the husband's right as legal guardian to make the decision. While I disagree with his decision personally, it is his responsibility; therefore, his right to make it. The parents have managedto drag this out for years with legal interference that I do not believe should have been entertained by the court.

The court did not usurp the husbands authority. The husband turned over the authority because the parents intervened.

 

[Gunny]

then why the guessing games?

tsk tsk, smarter. Thought you were smarterthanthat. I'm not playing guessing games. I've been rather obvious.

currently, it is illegal to employ more humane means.

Thus the hypocrisy of which I spoke.

that is a completely bogus argument and completely intellectually dishonest. theres a HUGE difference between a developing infant and a severely brain damaged adult with no hope of recovery.

I beg to differ. Your blind acceptance of the husband's intentions is what is bogus. There is nothign dishonest about it at all. It is completely logical.

You are attempting to caveat why she cannot feed herself. What does that have to do with it?

Since when did we start killing off people who were severely brain damaged?

You sure are all about playing God on this one.

The court did not usurp the husbands authority. The husband turned over the authority because the parents intervened.

The parents petitioned the court to intervene. The husband's rights were interfered with by the court on the parent's behalf. To my knowledge he has not voluntarily relinquished guardianship or this would not be an issue. Which is what I said the first time.

Gunny

 

[SmarterThanYou]

The parents petitioned the court to intervene. The husband's rights were interfered with by the court on the parent's behalf. To my knowledge he has not voluntarily relinquished guardianship or this would not be an issue. Which is what I said the first time.

Gunny

I stand somewhat corrected that the court took over terri's guardianship during trial. I've not blindly accepted the husbands word, however, being a husband myself I do not want to see my spousal responsibility pre-empted by a federal government intrusion.

 

[theim]

"the facts of the case ARE, terri said she did not want to be kept alive this way and the courts"

For (what I hope to be) the last time That is not a fact. Nobody knows she said that. Or are you a friend of Terri whom she personally told? Does it even give you a moment's pause to know that the only person who claims to have been told is one who stands to gain a substantial amount of money from her death, and already has a new love and children? Even a little?

 

[musicman]

Has it escaped everyone's notice that, in the space of a few months, we have heard Barney Frank raising hell about irresponsible comments by mainstream media moguls AND the federal government playing fast and loose with the constitutional separation of powers??!!

What the hell is next - we're going to find out he's been banging Madonna??

 

[SmarterThanYou]

"the facts of the case ARE, terri said she did not want to be kept alive this way and the courts"

For (what I hope to be) the last time That is not a fact. Nobody knows she said that. Or are you a friend of Terri whom she personally told? Does it even give you a moment's pause to know that the only person who claims to have been told is one who stands to gain a substantial amount of money from her death, and already has a new love and children? Even a little?

it IS a fact, as addressed by the florida courts AFTER hearing all testimony. what part of DUE PROCESS do you refuse to acknowledge in this?

It gave the entire state of florida 7 years pause as they debated this.

If the parents of terri schiavo had won the florida state case and terri was forced to remain alive, congress would never have batted an eye. way to look out for those rights.

 

[dilloduck]

it IS a fact, as addressed by the florida courts AFTER hearing all testimony. what part of DUE PROCESS do you refuse to acknowledge in this?

It gave the entire state of florida 7 years pause as they debated this.

If the parents of terri schiavo had won the florida state case and terri was forced to remain alive, congress would never have batted an eye. way to look out for those rights.

The whole issue revolves around the legal system trying to make a determination when the rights of indivuals clash. If they would interpret the law instead of making it perhaps a lot of issues like these would be resolved without all the uproar.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

The whole issue revolves around the legal system trying to make a determination when the rights of indivuals clash. If they would interpret the law instead of making it perhaps a lot of issues like these would be resolved without all the uproar.

point out in all of those court documents what law they misinterpreted. Also, whos rights clashed?

 

[dilloduck]

point out in all of those court documents what law they misinterpreted. Also, whos rights clashed?

Got a problem with legal revolution ?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Got a problem with legal revolution ?

it that what you're going to call this bullshit now? legal revolution?

hell, lets go with a total government overhaul then. kill all the democrats and liberals. imprison every states right independent until they understand that this is now a one party majority rule nation. :bat:

 

[rtwngAvngr]

it that what you're going to call this bullshit now? legal revolution?

hell, lets go with a total government overhaul then. kill all the democrats and liberals. imprison every states right independent until they understand that this is now a one party majority rule nation. :bat:

I don't think that would be legal. Why all the drama? America has rejected the lib socialist agenda. Deal with it.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

it that what you're going to call this bullshit now? legal revolution?

hell, lets go with a total government overhaul then. kill all the democrats and liberals. imprison every states right independent until they understand that this is now a one party majority rule nation. :bat:

I don't think that would be legal. Why all the drama? America has rejected the lib socialist agenda. Deal with ith.

 

[Gunny]

A patient's inability to pay for medical care combined with a prognosis that renders further care futile are two reasons a hospital might suggest cutting off life support, the chief medical officer at St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital said Monday.

Just caught this one, Smarter. Where's the BS flag?

Terri Schiavo has had her feeding tube removed. She is still alive, just starving as any of us would be in like circumstances. If you want to call something intellectually dishonest, I think it applies rather well to those of you attempting to pass off a secondary support system as "life support."

What you are in essence saying is that anyone who needs assistance to survive is subject to your judgement on whether or not they are worthy of remaining among us. Or is it just those incapable of feeding themselves? Guess we can get rid of all those parapalegics cluttering up our space.

 

[MyName]

Hi Gunny

 

[theim]

it that what you're going to call this bullshit now? legal revolution?

hell, lets go with a total government overhaul then. kill all the democrats and liberals. imprison every states right independent until they understand that this is now a one party majority rule nation. :bat:

Congress orders a Federal judge to reveiw a case where a woman's life is at stake and suddenly liberals are being rounded in death camps and USA is a totalitarian regime.

Is this just like if partial birth abortion is made illegal, than women will be herded underground just for breeding and cooking, and will lose the right to vote and be veiwed as simple sex machines to be grown, used and disposed of like in The Matrix?

Or because Bush uses the word "God" in public and the Ten Commandments are on a city park, that means we are two days away from a Theocratic USA where the Pope is head of state?

Or because a protestor is not allowed to go nude in Central Park and defecate on a sidewalk, that means Bush and Co. is in the final stages of hiring machine gun squads to "take care of" the next crowd of protestors?

Honestly, libs just need to chill the hell ou sometimes.