Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Conspiracies & Cover-ups
Bedtime for Democracy
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Zoomerz" data-source="post: 22185" data-attributes="member: 390"><p><strong>Re: Bedtime for Democracy</strong></p><p></p><p>Sosuemetoo;</p><p></p><p></p><p>First of all, I really do sympathize with the parents in this case. What parent wants to see their child die? For that matter, what loving husband does? I have spent the better part of 3 days listening to BOTH sides of this debate, and yes, it certainly is a complex situation.</p><p></p><p>While true that Terri cannot speak for herself NOW, in the eyes of the Forida state court, 19 judges....let me say that again, 19 judges....painfully heard the merits of this case. 19 judges heard EVERY testimony from EVERY witness. We have not. Not you, not me, not any of the posters on this forum....</p><p></p><p>In all 19 cases the judges rulings were the same. In the court's eyes, enough testimony corroborated the fact that Terri's desire was that she not be kept alive in this state. I hear much talk that "we don't know what Terri wants, so....". Well, the fact is, we DO know, through exhaustive testimony.</p><p></p><p>There are 2 reasons we don't want to believe that she wants to die. First, the husband's "motives" are very questionable (although in another sense, so are the parent's MHO), and secondly, our "pro-life" beliefs lead us to question a person's right to die at all. </p><p></p><p>Today I heard an interview with the court-appointed medical advocate for Terri during 12 of the 15 years this has been going on. He spent *countless* hours with her, at her bedside, and his explicit function was to determine whether or not she was a) truly in a VS (vegitative state), B) was responsive to ANY stimulous (not reflexive, but reactive), and c) showed ANY signs of improvement over time. His answer in each case was no. He is also well aware of the parent's hopes, and feels their *hopes* and *love* for her have led them to a "whatever it takes to keep her alive" posture. They have misinterpreted her reflexive actions as responsive, in an attempt to hold on. Personally, having gone through something similar twice (once with my 8 month old son, and more recently with my Father), I can easily see that happening.</p><p></p><p>Now please don't misunderstand me, I am pro-life, and believe in the absense of having the expressed desire of Terri, we should (as Bush suggests), "err on the side of life". However, the court (again after exhaustive testimony), has determined that IT WAS TERRI'S WISH NOT TO LIVE IN THIS CONDITION. All 19 judges sided NOT WITH THE HUSBAND, but with Terri, and ruled in favor of honoring HER wishes. Unfortunately, because many people feel the husband is being opportunistic and has selfish motives, that the court's decision is "siding" with him. That just isn't the case if you look at the decisions themselves.</p><p></p><p>Now comes the Congress, politicizing and legislating where they don't belong. Setting a precedent that is sure to be repeated as necessary. Of all of this, I believe this part to be the most vile. Which one of you truly believes any member of Congress gives a rat's a** about Terri Schaivo? No. They are politicizing simply to enhance their own political agendas. All this "moral high ground", it's good to be seen on the conservative side of things these days isn't it? Makes me sick to my stomach. I'm with Paul, impeach them all, and let's start over.</p><p></p><p>Anyway, sorry to be so long-winded SoSueMeToo, and I understand your feelings. As far as the 7th section, I've come to find out that these "individualized" laws are quite common. Laws that apply only to individuals or groups of individuals. For the life of me, I can't remember the name given to them. However, precedent certainly can, and does get set when they occur, and this is not good. Not good at all.</p><p></p><p>MHO, and sympathies to Terri's family. I think they should honor the opinions of everyone that has been directly involved in the decision process up until now, and let her go. It is her wish to go.</p><p></p><p>Z-</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Zoomerz, post: 22185, member: 390"] [b]Re: Bedtime for Democracy[/b] Sosuemetoo; First of all, I really do sympathize with the parents in this case. What parent wants to see their child die? For that matter, what loving husband does? I have spent the better part of 3 days listening to BOTH sides of this debate, and yes, it certainly is a complex situation. While true that Terri cannot speak for herself NOW, in the eyes of the Forida state court, 19 judges....let me say that again, 19 judges....painfully heard the merits of this case. 19 judges heard EVERY testimony from EVERY witness. We have not. Not you, not me, not any of the posters on this forum.... In all 19 cases the judges rulings were the same. In the court's eyes, enough testimony corroborated the fact that Terri's desire was that she not be kept alive in this state. I hear much talk that "we don't know what Terri wants, so....". Well, the fact is, we DO know, through exhaustive testimony. There are 2 reasons we don't want to believe that she wants to die. First, the husband's "motives" are very questionable (although in another sense, so are the parent's MHO), and secondly, our "pro-life" beliefs lead us to question a person's right to die at all. Today I heard an interview with the court-appointed medical advocate for Terri during 12 of the 15 years this has been going on. He spent *countless* hours with her, at her bedside, and his explicit function was to determine whether or not she was a) truly in a VS (vegitative state), B) was responsive to ANY stimulous (not reflexive, but reactive), and c) showed ANY signs of improvement over time. His answer in each case was no. He is also well aware of the parent's hopes, and feels their *hopes* and *love* for her have led them to a "whatever it takes to keep her alive" posture. They have misinterpreted her reflexive actions as responsive, in an attempt to hold on. Personally, having gone through something similar twice (once with my 8 month old son, and more recently with my Father), I can easily see that happening. Now please don't misunderstand me, I am pro-life, and believe in the absense of having the expressed desire of Terri, we should (as Bush suggests), "err on the side of life". However, the court (again after exhaustive testimony), has determined that IT WAS TERRI'S WISH NOT TO LIVE IN THIS CONDITION. All 19 judges sided NOT WITH THE HUSBAND, but with Terri, and ruled in favor of honoring HER wishes. Unfortunately, because many people feel the husband is being opportunistic and has selfish motives, that the court's decision is "siding" with him. That just isn't the case if you look at the decisions themselves. Now comes the Congress, politicizing and legislating where they don't belong. Setting a precedent that is sure to be repeated as necessary. Of all of this, I believe this part to be the most vile. Which one of you truly believes any member of Congress gives a rat's a** about Terri Schaivo? No. They are politicizing simply to enhance their own political agendas. All this "moral high ground", it's good to be seen on the conservative side of things these days isn't it? Makes me sick to my stomach. I'm with Paul, impeach them all, and let's start over. Anyway, sorry to be so long-winded SoSueMeToo, and I understand your feelings. As far as the 7th section, I've come to find out that these "individualized" laws are quite common. Laws that apply only to individuals or groups of individuals. For the life of me, I can't remember the name given to them. However, precedent certainly can, and does get set when they occur, and this is not good. Not good at all. MHO, and sympathies to Terri's family. I think they should honor the opinions of everyone that has been directly involved in the decision process up until now, and let her go. It is her wish to go. Z- [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Conspiracies & Cover-ups
Bedtime for Democracy
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top