Bedtime for Democracy

[JediStryker]

Re: Bedtime for Democracy

Everything is a moral issue, bud, whether you like that or not. Please share the reports and x-rays that you've been privvy to.

BTW, what is cruel about keeping someone in 'this state' for years? If she experiences no emotions and her brain is just goo, what difference in the world does it make to her?

 

[StarLord]

Re: Bedtime for Democracy

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"JediStryker\")</div>

Everything is a moral issue, bud, whether you like that or not. Please share the reports and x-rays that you've been privvy to.

BTW, what is cruel about keeping someone in 'this state' for years? If she experiences no emotions and her brain is just goo, what difference in the world does it make to her?[/b]

You are kidding right? Of what benefit to Anyone but the Hospital and the Dr. that is overseeing this could a situation like this offer? Honestly, the idea to keep a human vegetable alive is one of the sickest idea going imho. And one fostered and upheld by whom ever could benefit. The attending Dr. is making money for nothing, the hospital is charging an arm and a leg per day which does not take long to drain a familys' resources and possibly bankrupt them.

The friend I spoke of before was handed a bill for $835,000 for his wife's care.
Just pocket change right? FOLLOW THE MONEY. This concept of "Right To Life' for a human vegetable only enriches a small segment of the health industry and yet to go against that grain we automatically appear anti-what ever.

The Govt. in any form or compacity should never have been involved in this matter. It is between the Husband & the Wife. No Body Else. Regardless of what the media has done to fan the flames into this overblown conflagration, this concerns only the man and his wife.

 

[JediStryker]

Re: Bedtime for Democracy

Of what benefit to Anyone but the Hospital and the Dr. that is overseeing this could a situation like this offer? Honestly, the idea to keep a human vegetable alive is one of the sickest idea going imho. And one fostered and upheld by whom ever could benefit. The attending Dr. is making money for nothing, the hospital is charging an arm and a leg per day which does not take long to drain a familys' resources and possibly bankrupt them.

It is not the doctors or the hospital fighting to keep Terri from being starved to death; it is her parents. They have shown evidence that she is not in a persistant vegitative state, several doctors have concured with that assessment, and even one of the doctors who initially diagnosed her as a PVS patient admitted later that he had not seen these activities (he had seen her for an accumulated 30 minutes over a year-long period).

The Govt. in any form or compacity should never have been involved in this matter. It is between the Husband & the Wife. No Body Else. Regardless of what the media has done to fan the flames into this overblown conflagration, this concerns only the man and his wife.

This is the same husband who, initially, filed a lawsuit and won 1.3 million dollars that was to be used for her continued care and therapy. A quote: "I believe in the vows I took with my wife, through sickness, in health, for richer or poor. I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her. I'm going to do that." -Michael Schiavo

This is the same husband who, soon afterward, refused antibiotics to treat his wife for a urinary tract infection, which can be incredibly painful.

This is the same husband who has spent $400,000 of that lawsuit money in lawyer fees to try and have her feeding tube pulled.

This is the same husband who has a live-in girlfriend and two children. The same husband who refuses to divorce his wife because then he could not re-marry in the Catholic church (he would also not receive the remainder of the lawsuit money or her life insurance money).

This is the same husband who once testified, under oath, that his wife was NOT a PVS patient.

 

[StarLord]

Re: Bedtime for Democracy

Hmmm, That presents a diferent light on this situation. The husband is milking the system for all he's worth.

By the by, he knows what he's doing regarding the antibiotics and the bladder infection. If not treated properly, a bladder infection can & WILL back track to the kidneys, which if not treated usually results in renal failure which is fatal. Not to mention the pain associated with a kidney infection, it's very much like a burst appendix if not worse.

Ok, Jedi, let me ask you this if I may. If this guy wasn't such a disgustingly avaricious scum ball that is using his wife's dilema to enrich his own life, what are your views towards keeping a husk that used to house a vibrant soul alive, with no possible recovery forseeable, via mechanical means?

 

[JediStryker]

Re: Bedtime for Democracy

Ok, Jedi, let me ask you this if I may. If this guy wasn't such a disgustingly avaricious scum ball that is using his wife's dilema to enrich his own life, what are your views towards keeping a husk that used to house a vibrant soul alive, with no possible recovery forseeable, via mechanical means?

Then I say that it is between the husband and wife and no one else. I was initially appalled by the idea that the Congress was intervening, and even wrote an impassioned letter to Peggy Noonan stating as such. It was only then, unfortunately, that I educated myself as to the facts of this situation.

 

[Zoomerz]

Re: Bedtime for Democracy

Jedi;

There are 2 issues involved here:

1. Whether or not Terri Schiavo's husband (or anyone other than she herself) has the right to make a life-choice for her.

2. Whether or not the federal government has the right to set precedent and intervene in the decision.

On the first, since there is no living will in existence, and the wishes of Terri cannot be known, you are correct, there is a moral issue involved. I happen to be pro-life, and believe in the absence of knowing her wishes, we must err on the side of life. (MHO)

As for the second issue, I beg to differ with you. It is not a moral issue at all. It is a legal one in which the MORAL aspect in #1 should NOT be considered at all. It is the jurisdiction of the state, not the federal government. The damage done here by their involvement far outweighs ANY single incident, regardless of the moral "correctness" or "incorrectness".

Consider this;

Our southern borders are overrun EVERY DAY by illegal immigrants. Our people are grossly overtaxed, and the deficit is growing at an alarming rate. As Paul outlines, the seperation of governmental powers is quickly polarizing from 3 branches to 1, and our grandchildren will be paying for the deficits we are incurring today.

All of the above, and the congress reconvenes from break OVERNIGHT to address the Schaivo situation? This is pure POLITICS, and bs, not policy and prudent government. I wholly support Terri Schaivo's right to live on moral principle, BUT, the federal government is grossly out-of-bounds on this, and should back out entirely.

MHO

Z-

 

[JediStryker]

Re: Bedtime for Democracy

I respectfully disagree. Everything, even the law, has it's base in morals. Laws are man's way of enforcing the morals set forth by G-d. I won't debate the existence of G-d here; you don't have to believe in Him or morality. But on the same token I do, and you will never convince me otherwise.

I normally wouldn't agree with Congress stepping into a situation like this, but I cannot suffer the same outrage you have in this case. Sorry. I would rather that an innocent life be saved and our whole government fall apart than watch a helpless woman be murdered with the sanctioning of a Florida judge. We can fight the government when it comes to it, Terri cannot.

 

[Zoomerz]

Re: Bedtime for Democracy

I respectfully disagree. Everything, even the law, has it's base in morals.

I've had this debate before, and respectfully, you are wrong. This is not a "moral", but a "policy" or "institutional" argument. It is not based on any "moral" argument at all. There is no "law" that the federal government cannot intervene (as we see), but there are prudent, practical reasons why it should not. Those reasons are NOT based on "morals", but on "jurisdiction".

you don't have to believe in Him or morality

Morals are morals, whether assimilated through judeo christian belief or not.

I would rather that an innocent life be saved and our whole government fall apart than watch a helpless woman be murdered with the sanctioning of a Florida judge.

This is a purely emotional response, and illogical (MHO). Please don't take offense to my statement, as I respect your feelings here. However, your statement is illogical.

Z-

 

[JediStryker]

Re: Bedtime for Democracy

I've had this debate before, and respectfully, you are wrong. This is not a \"moral\", but a \"policy\" or \"institutional\" argument. It is not based on any \"moral\" argument at all. There is no \"law\" that the federal government cannot intervene (as we see), but there are prudent, practical reasons why it should not. Those reasons are NOT based on \"morals\", but on \"jurisdiction\".

You are not in a position to tell that I am wrong. You can have your opinion, and you can cling to it with all the strength you can muster, but your opinion is no weightier than mine. I disagree with you, and that's that. That makes me neither right nor wrong.

This is a purely emotional response, and illogical (MHO). Please don't take offense to my statement, as I respect your feelings here. However, your statement is illogical.

I'm not offended, and you can call my response illogical, as it is in some part. But logic and what is right do not often go well together. It would be logical to start systematically euthanizing people when they can be said to longer be contributing to society. I imagine you would be outraged at such a proposition. I see the sanctioned starvation of a human being by the Florida government as being morally reprehensible, and would rather see some rules bent/broken to stave off such an outcome than adhere to a set of laws. I say this in the understanding that that this is a very different case than most and that usually I would be on the other side of the fence. But in this case it's pretty clear that the party seeking Terri's death is not representing her will but rather their own, and it infuriates me to see a Florida judge playing along with it.

So just as I once cheered on Batman as he broke some laws to stop Joker and end one of his murderous rampages, I cheer on the Congress in it's effort to stop a greedy, selfish man from committing murder. Do I understand the possibly dangerous precedent this could set? Yes. But I also understand that her life is more important than any law.

That's how I see it.

 

[Zoomerz]

Re: Bedtime for Democracy

You are not in a position to tell that I am wrong. You can have your opinion, and you can cling to it with all the strength you can muster, but your opinion is no weightier than mine. I disagree with you, and that's that. That makes me neither right nor wrong.

Fair enough!

But logic and what is right do not often go well together.

I've often argued that instead of basing our legal system on "precedent", it would be better to have it based on "common sense" (heh), and a standardized test administered to all government officials. This would much better serve this exact type of situation. Unfortunately, that has huge problems too.

Let me ask you one last question....

What if the fed actually intercedes and overturns the state's decision, and Florida disregards the fed's decision? Don't they have pretty good legal grounds to sue the fed government over it? Not that this will happen, as I believe Fl's governor is a family member eh?

This WILL come back to haunt us as Americans, and it scares the hell out of me.

Z-