Civil Disobedience and Terry Schaivo

[Eightball]

who's the obviously biased source that said this?

I'm sorry, I only have my wife's statement this morning. KSFO AM is a major conservative talk/radio station in the San Francisco, Bay Area.

It was the "THE BRIAN SUSSMAN SHOW", and the link to that page is

http://www.ksfo.com/viewentry.asp?ID=325987&PT=Program Summaries

Brian was not hosting the show last night. He had someone substituting for him, and that's the person that made the statement that my wife heard while commuting home in the early evening (PST).

Email or call the station and check it out.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

For those of you who think my comparison of the Schiavo travesty to the Nazi regime is out of line, that is just too bad because I find too much of a similarity between the two. Who are we (including judges) to decide the life or death of an innocent person? For whatever reason? If we allow a Florida judge to have the power of life or death over an innocent person such as Terri Schiavo, we are setting ourselves up for all kinds of future life-or-death situations to be decided arbitrarily by various little Hitler's within the government, not by the person who's very life is on the line. If Terri Schiavo is killed, this will be a victory for the Nazi-like nihilistic liberal movement that has infested our country.

You are either Pro-Life or you are Pro-Death.

The biggest argument for the death of Terri is being based on the hearsay of the husband - he is being given the "right" to decide life or death for his wife. The life of an innocent person is being placed in the hands of someone else. Where does this "right" to decide the life or death of innocents come from? Who, if anybody, should be given this "right"? This is not a matter of stopping extreme measures, it is only food and water for a person who, while not all there, is conscious and responsive in a limited way. Although a very sad life, this is a person's life that is being sentenced to death.

The liberal movement in our country is Pro-Death. They think that killing an innocent person based on the hearsay of a husband is righteous. Yet those very same liberals don't think that a husband has the same right to decide about the life of his unborn baby. Why is there such hypocrisy? One has to wonder about the silence on the Left today as this woman is sentenced to die a torturous death. Myself, I don't wonder. I know that the liberal movement which has infiltrated and twisted our legal system is a movement that supports nihilism and death - just like the Nazis did.

The virtually complete silence from women’s and victims’ rights activists—particularly in a society that claims to abhor spousal abuse—is mind boggling. Where is the National Organization for Women? Why haven’t they condemned Michael Schiavo as a philandering pig who has fathered two children to a mistress while Terri—the woman he is married to—is denied her most basic civil and human rights?

The stunning silence from the Left is easily understood based on ideology alone. It is inexcusable that the Florida court system has utterly betrayed its oath to uphold the rule of law and protect its citizenry. The courts are not merely turning a blind eye to spousal abuse, but are, in fact, demanding that this abuse continue.

The United States Constitution states, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (Amendment XIV, Section I). This amendment was written to protect the right to life of all American citizens.

Terri’s right to life is being attacked by the very court system created to protect her rights. Furthermore, her right to due process has repeatedly been abridged. Michael Schiavo has had legal representation; Terri’s loving parents, the Schindler’s, have lawyers; but Terri has never been provided with counsel.

Even Florida state laws are being broken. Media director for the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation, Pamela Hennessy, commented on this scandal in a release from March 10 of this year:

Florida Statute 744.3215 (Rights of Persons Determined Incapacitated) require that incapacitated persons cannot be deprived of necessary services including food and water
Florida Statute 765.404 which defines persistent vegetative state require that the condition be determined and diagnosed as permanent prior to the withdrawal of life-prolonging means
Florida Statute 765.309 prevents mercy killing and assisted suicide.

Hennessy continued, “Under Florida Statute 765.404, clear and convincing evidence of the ward’s intent for medical treatment must be established. The only evidence in support of removing Terri’s feeding tube was the self-serving hearsay testimony of her guardian (which is not admissible under FS 90.602) and hearsay from two members of his immediate family. Greer systematically ruled that the testimony from Terri’s friends and family was unreliable or not credible.”

http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_10763.shtml

 

[SmarterThanYou]

For those of you who think my comparison of the Schiavo travesty to the Nazi regime is out of line, that is just too bad because I find too much of a similarity between the two. Who are we (including judges) to decide the life or death of an innocent person? For whatever reason? If we allow a Florida judge to have the power of life or death over an innocent person such as Terri Schiavo, we are setting ourselves up for all kinds of future life-or-death situations to be decided arbitrarily by various little Hitler's within the government, not by the person who's very life is on the line. If Terri Schiavo is killed, this will be a victory for the Nazi-like nihilistic liberal movement that has infested our country.

You are either Pro-Life or you are Pro-Death.

The biggest argument for the death of Terri is being based on the hearsay of the husband - he is being given the "right" to decide life or death for his wife. The life of an innocent person is being placed in the hands of someone else. Where does this "right" to decide the life or death of innocents come from? Who, if anybody, should be given this "right"? This is not a matter of stopping extreme measures, it is only food and water for a person who, while not all there, is conscious and responsive in a limited way. Although a very sad life, this is a person's life that is being sentenced to death.

The liberal movement in our country is Pro-Death. They think that killing an innocent person based on the hearsay of a husband is righteous. Yet those very same liberals don't think that a husband has the same right to decide about the life of his unborn baby. Why is there such hypocrisy? One has to wonder about the silence on the Left today as this woman is sentenced to die a torturous death. Myself, I don't wonder. I know that the liberal movement which has infiltrated and twisted our legal system is a movement that supports nihilism and death - just like the Nazis did.

spousal responsibility has been a precedent for centuries. this isn't something new that some 'liberal judicial activist' has decided to legislate from the bench. It happens dozens of times a day over life/death matters, medical emergencies, among other things. Your argument of a single florida judge having the power over terri's life or death is erroneous. It's about terri's wishes and despite your suspicion that its wrong or your consideration of it being hearsay, the court and judge has ruled in favor of these decades of precedent that the spouses interests are determined by the other spouse when they cannot decide for themselves. The liberal movement is NOT pro-death no matter how many times you try to say it, its just not true. Its about self determination. Thats like me saying that because conservatives/republicans are so adamant about keeping terri alive against her wishes that they should be called the party of sadism instead of the party of (insert your preferred term here). When a number of people claimed that the bush administration is acting just like the nazi party because of the comparison of actions, you called it bullshit leftist babble. well you're current use of it is bullshit extremist babble.

Florida Statute 765.404 which defines persistent vegetative state require that the condition be determined and diagnosed as permanent prior to the withdrawal of life-prolonging meansThis has been fulfilled by several court appointed doctors.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

spousal responsibility has been a precedent for centuries. this isn't something new that some 'liberal judicial activist' has decided to legislate from the bench. It happens dozens of times a day over life/death matters, medical emergencies, among other things. Your argument of a single florida judge having the power over terri's life or death is erroneous. It's about terri's wishes and despite your suspicion that its wrong or your consideration of it being hearsay, the court and judge has ruled in favor of these decades of precedent that the spouses interests are determined by the other spouse when they cannot decide for themselves. The liberal movement is NOT pro-death no matter how many times you try to say it, its just not true. Its about self determination. Thats like me saying that because conservatives/republicans are so adamant about keeping terri alive against her wishes that they should be called the party of sadism instead of the party of (insert your preferred term here). When a number of people claimed that the bush administration is acting just like the nazi party because of the comparison of actions, you called it bullshit leftist babble. well you're current use of it is bullshit extremist babble.

Florida Statute 765.404 which defines persistent vegetative state require that the condition be determined and diagnosed as permanent prior to the withdrawal of life-prolonging meansThis has been fulfilled by several court appointed doctors.

You say the liberal movement is about "self-determination". So where is Terri's "self-determination" other than in the hearsay of her husband? Why is the judge discounting the hearsay from her parents and family? She lived most of her life with them, not her husband, before the condition (and obviously afterwards as well). Hasn't the rest of the family also historically had a voice?

Also with a blind judge ruling on this case I have severe doubts about his judgement. He can't see even Terri and her condition. Who exactly is defending Terri? Obviously her parents can't as the judge has discounted their opinions. If the judge is ruling on the "self-determination" of Terri, then you would think he would allow input from ALL those who knew her before this.

Finally, is it even right to make a life or death decision on hearsay alone?How many others are being kept alive with a feeding tube or an IV of some sort? Should they also die if they can't communicate and a spouse decides to do away with them?

 

[Bosox21]

Fox news had a doctor on, and we know how fair and balanced they are LOL, he said once the tube is removed the person falls asleep into a coma and passes away with out pain. He went on to say a person in Terris condition doesnt feel hunger they way you and I do, as her brain is not functioning. So lets not act like she's being starved because thats a lie.

Screaming egale, Im fine with whatever you think if your pro life or pro-choice. however if you say you have to be either one, dont tell me your pro-life and for the death penatly becuase that's a contradiction. As many right wingers have said the past few days on TV only god has a choice to who lives and who dies. So if you belive that you should be anti-death penalty.

Agian, comparing it to Nazis is wrong and disgusting. The courts heard from numerous people that they heard her say she wouldnt want to be kept alive. The law states it's the husbands choice in the matter, not the family or any politician. I think it's funny you scream we cant take an innocent life, when people like you are for executing the mentally Ill, who dont know any better. Hitler did that to, so you might want to look in the mirror as well.

 

[Nienna]

Here, Jeff, Since no one else will bite, I'll answer your question. Yes, her family would be justified in disobeying the judge's order and seeking to keep her tube inserted. We hope it wouldn't have to come to this, but what's being done to her is a travesty and against God (The Supreme Judge)'s will.

For some lib's...Not all conservatives support the death penalty.

 

[MissileMan]

This whole argument comes down to what everyone's definition of life is. In reality, the human body is a life support system for the brain. If the brain is damaged beyond all possible hope of repair, then there is no sense in keeping the body alive.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Fox news had a doctor on, and we know how fair and balanced they are LOL, he said once the tube is removed the person falls asleep into a coma and passes away with out pain. He went on to say a person in Terris condition doesnt feel hunger they way you and I do, as her brain is not functioning. So lets not act like she's being starved because thats a lie.

Screaming egale, Im fine with whatever you think if your pro life or pro-choice. however if you say you have to be either one, dont tell me your pro-life and for the death penatly becuase that's a contradiction. As many right wingers have said the past few days on TV only god has a choice to who lives and who dies. So if you belive that you should be anti-death penalty.

Agian, comparing it to Nazis is wrong and disgusting. The courts heard from numerous people that they heard her say she wouldnt want to be kept alive. The law states it's the husbands choice in the matter, not the family or any politician. I think it's funny you scream we cant take an innocent life, when people like you are for executing the mentally Ill, who dont know any better. Hitler did that to, so you might want to look in the mirror as well.

The death penalty deals with people who have killed innocent people. Murderers have lost their rights to life according to the law because they took away the rights to life of those they killed. However, the liberals have prevented most murderers from actual death due to extensive battles in the court system and most murderers given the death penalty die in jail. Many murderers are given long sentences and then are back out in the streets at some point. Liberalism actually supports the protection of murdering bastards.

Liberals are against the death penalty. But they aren't against the death of people like Terri Shiavo. Why? Isn't life worth keeping? Aren't liberals for protecting the disabled? Terri Shiavo would have more support for her life by the liberals if she murdered somebody.

I compare liberals to the Nazis because it was the Nazis who deliberately determined which INNOCENTS should live and which should die. Hitler knocked off tens of thousands of mentally ill and disabled people because supposedly they were "better off dead".

 

[Nienna]

This whole argument comes down to what everyone's definition of life is. In reality, the human body is a life support system for the brain. If the brain is damaged beyond all possible hope of repair, then there is no sense in keeping the body alive.

Uh-huh, right. We are just a concatenation of atoms randomly assembled from the soup pot of the universe. Sure. But I guess this would belong in another thread.

 

[Eightball]

"Originally Posted by Bosox21
Fox news had a doctor on, and we know how fair and balanced they are LOL"



Thats the thing. Fox is fair and balanced, but the old media has gone so far left, that Fox looks ultra-right wing to those that see CNN/CBS/ABC/NBC/Reuters/AP as the norm.

It's like the old frog in the slowly heating water. These folks have followed those old, dinosaur news companys and have been gradually massaged into liberalism as these once respected news sources have deteriorated.

Once these media sources, proudly endorced American values, patriotism, and defense of the Constitution, but now they are harbingers, of doubt, pessimism, and anti-American values.

This didn't happen overnight. It was a slow progression that sucked so many in.

Fox, is one of the bright shining stars of clear thought, and discussion, that supports debate on both sides.

The other news sources are just small steps from BBC, and then the slippery slope tumbles on to Al Jazera.

20 years ago, there would not even be a hint of discussion/debate on Terry Schiavo, but thanks to the dumbing down of America, and the eradication of morality, we are in this terrible dilemma. Terry Schiavo would have been a non-news story back then. She would have been taken care of, i.e. fed, and hydrated..........which is NOT, extraordinary care!

 

[musicman]

Fox news had a doctor on, and we know how fair and balanced they are LOL

After a lifetime of consuming the fare of the mainstream media, I can see how anyone doing any actual fair reporting must seem like a right-wing propogandist, but let's be realistic here. At least Fox gives a fair hearing to both sides of an issue.

, he said once the tube is removed the person falls asleep into a coma and passes away with out pain. He went on to say a person in Terris condition doesnt feel hunger they way you and I do, as her brain is not functioning.

HTF would HE know?

So lets not act like she's being starved because thats a lie.

HTF would YOU know?

Screaming egale, Im fine with whatever you think if your pro life or pro-choice. however if you say you have to be either one, dont tell me your pro-life and for the death penatly becuase that's a contradiction.

It is nothing of the kind. A murderer has already made that choice for someone else. Society must protect itself from lawless sociopaths; we've seen what happens when we weaken in our resolve to do so. Innocent life is another matter entirely.

I think it's funny you scream we cant take an innocent life, when people like you are for executing the mentally Ill, who dont know any better.

Again, HTF would YOU know? A judge or a jury has made the determination that this person possessed enough of a mental capacity to perceive the wrongness of his actions. He meets the criteria for the imposition of the death penalty - it is , therefore, indicated.

 

[MissileMan]

what's being done to her is a travesty and against God (The Supreme Judge)'s will.

How exactly did God pass on this information to you? Allowing her to die is not the same thing as killing her and unless someone snuck a new one in, I know of no commandment that says "You shall not let someone die".

And since you opened the can of worms, if you believe in heaven and a hereafter, what's the problem? Don't you believe that she'll be way better off after she has passed?

 

[Nienna]

How exactly did God pass on this information to you? Allowing her to die is not the same thing as killing her and unless someone snuck a new one in, I know of no commandment that says "You shall not let someone die".

And since you opened the can of worms, if you believe in heaven and a hereafter, what's the problem? Don't you believe that she'll be way better off after she has passed?

That's a whole 'nother story. Let's start a new thread, want to?

 

[MissileMan]

That's a whole 'nother story. Let's start a new thread, want to?

I think the points/questions are germane to this discussion, but if my questions have given you an idea for another thread, start it up.

 

[musicman]

She would have been taken care of, i.e. fed, and hydrated..........which is NOT, extraordinary care!

That's an important point to consider. By whose definition is the providing of nourishment, "extraordinary care"?

 

[musicman]

This whole argument comes down to what everyone's definition of life is. In reality, the human body is a life support system for the brain. If the brain is damaged beyond all possible hope of repair, then there is no sense in keeping the body alive.

Such a tough, heart-rending issue. I can see your point, too, MM.

 

[Eightball]

How exactly did God pass on this information to you? Allowing her to die is not the same thing as killing her and unless someone snuck a new one in, I know of no commandment that says "You shall not let someone die".

And since you opened the can of worms, if you believe in heaven and a hereafter, what's the problem? Don't you believe that she'll be way better off after she has passed?

If you think starving and dehydrating someone to death is allowing them a dignified death.........your the problem, not the solution! "They shoot horses don't they?"

Remember Sea Biscuit.............famous race horse gets a messed up leg injury. The Vet says, "put Sea Biscuit to sleep". The trainer disagrees and rehabilitates Sea Biscuit back into a champion.

Terry, isn't a disabled, horse, dog, cat, etc..............she's a human being................she deserves dignity.......and she appears to have cognitive life in her........but you folks are trying so hard to get her 6 feet under as soon as possible.

Gosh, Death Row inmates get more respect for their pitiful lives than Terry Schiavo. Schiavo isn't a rapest or a serial killer, yet everyones using every legal mumbo-jumbo to get her "offed". Is it that she makes many uncomfortable, about life, disabilities, moral values, ethics, religion and and the quicker solution is to wipe the slate clean, and hopefully forget about her in two weeks?

This reminds me of the Seinfeld Syndrom. Remember the last episode of Seinfeld..........They all got busted for basically being self centered, egoists. Some poor bloak is being rolled and all the Seinfeld bunch can do is watch and smirk at the poor person's situation. It's the old, "don't get involved" in someone's life........There are bonifide people that are willing to commit their lives to caring for Terry. Let them. Terry, is not Karen Ann Quinlin(mispelled)! Quinlin lay in a coma for years...........she was

Actually, I guess we all ought to "off" ourselves, because none of us will have to experience , colds, Flu, scaped knees, divorces, depression, pain........... after death. That's where some of this logic leads...........though the above is extreme.........Remember Soylent Green......Edward G. Robinson....?

 

['ol Perfessor]

That's a whole 'nother story. Let's start a new thread, want to?

The whole of this boils down to the judge in the case. Legally he does not have to revue his facts once established to his satisfaction. But morally, ethically, doesn't this woman deserve as much as a review of the case to make sure before the trigger ,so to speak, is pulled? From what I have read he will not even read the filings tossed at him in sheer desperation by her family. That deserves a comtempt of congress charge and maybe it is time to recall and impeach a few of these ticks that inhabit the bench in America.
It may be that she is completely hopeless. Her hubby is laughable as well in that he insists she wouldn't want to live this way. IF HE'S RIGHT SHE DOESN'T KNOW SHE'S ALIVE ANYWAY! So why the grandstanding. He makes no sense. Like Scott Peterson, divorce her you don't have to kill her. He obviously knows of no authority other than his own wants. This is what the erosion of right, wrong and God does to society.

 

[Eightball]

That's an important point to consider. By whose definition is the providing of nourishment, "extraordinary care"?

By those pulling and advocating the pulling of the tube...........! Courts say,,,,,,,,,,,no extraordinary care........let her die...............ok pull tubes.......no food, no water............she dies peacefully........NOT!

Do they quit hydrating/feeding a terminally ill patient?

 

[MissileMan]

If you think starving and dehydrating someone to death is allowing them a dignified death.........your the problem, not the solution! "They shoot horses don't they?"

Remember Sea Biscuit.............famous race horse gets a messed up leg injury. The Vet says, "put Sea Biscuit to sleep". The trainer disagrees and rehabilitates Sea Biscuit back into a champion.

Trying to equate a broken bone with an almost totally dead brain is like comparing an apple to a 747. Terry is actually missing significant portions of her brain that have been replaced by spinal fluid. So let's suppose that Seabiscuit's injury had been one where 2 of his legs had been severed completely off, do you think they would have tried to keep him alive, or would they have put him down?