Thank you for your interest. No, we did not have chicken. We have that often enough at home that it is beside the point when dining out. Instead, we had moules et frites accompanied by a lovely Sancerre Rose.
It was a scrumptious meal!
This is entirely incorrect. The exsistence of the soul or the definition of humanity does not enter into the discussion. What is at stake here is the right of individuals to detemine their own fate. Terri Schiavo made her own decision about when her “soul [was] ready to leave its body,” and made her decision known to her husband and her friends. Michael Schiavo spent fifteen years trying to honor his wife’s wishes. Her parents, their supporters, and, by extension, yourself, have been trying to impose your own beliefs on her and her husband, who is, by both law and tradition, the one person most likely to be familiar with her wishes. And before you start in about “reasonable doubt,” keep in mind that that is a legal term with a precise definition, which has been met over and over in multiple courts presided over by multiple judges. And note that Michael Schiavo had absolutely no reason to lie about her wishes. At no point did he stand to gain financially by Terri’s incapacitation or by her death, as shown by EddyTeddyFreddy’s link.
Bottom line: Terri told Michael that she did not want to be kept alive if she were a vegetable. Michael had absolutely no reason to lie about this. Legally, a living will is not required for the next of kin to have the hospital remove life support. As next of kin, it is assumed that Michael best knows the wishes of the woman to whom he was married. Many other people, with no relation to Michael, have also testified as to Terri’s wishes. If there is any disagreement between deeply held core values, it exsists between you and Terri Schiavo, not between you and the people arguing with you in this thread.
No - you have merely described your interpretation of the tragedy according to your values and beliefs.
Who is this a reply to?
Your last post.
You have confirmed that you place the highest belief in the secular judiciary - and that any disregarded evidence is irrelevant. This colors you entire interpretation of the tragedy.
While it makes it true for you, it doensn’t make it true or right for people who hold different values than do you.
For the third time in two threads, what do you, wonderwench, regard as sufficient evidence, then? How high must I jump to meet your standards of proof? I took my parents to dinner last night with two close friends to celebrate their anniversary. If three people at the table say, “pull the plug” and the fourth says “No” because he or she can’t believe I’m dead, is that enough? Thank heaven all four know me too well and are too sensible to try to sustain my lifeless body. My closest friends and the members of this message board know my views; I’ve said them loud and clear recently. Do you still consider yourself entitled to override them because I haven’t made out a living will yet?
What standard of proof do you want?
CJ
True? now you are being pathetic:
So far **wonderwench ** keeps on maintaining that no swallowing tests were performed, that no scans of Mrs. Schiavo’s brain were made, and that no one beside Michael testified that Mrs. Schiavo did not want to live like that. After pasting links and showing that the Shindler’s doctors were quacks still **wonderwench ** keeps those positions.
Saying them once is ignorance
Saying them twice is willful ignorance
Saying them three times is now being a compulsive liar.
The price being paid in the SDMB is to not trust anything that comes from **wonderwench **
[QUOTE=Siege]
For the third time in two threads, what do you, wonderwench, regard as sufficient evidence, then? How high must I jump to meet your standards of proof? I took my parents to dinner last night with two close friends to celebrate their anniversary. If three people at the table say, “pull the plug” and the fourth says “No” because he or she can’t believe I’m dead, is that enough? Thank heaven all four know me too well and are too sensible to try to sustain my lifeless body. My closest friends and the members of this message board know my views; I’ve said them loud and clear recently. Do you still consider yourself entitled to override them because I haven’t made out a living will yet?
What standard of proof do you want?
CJ[/QUOTE
It is not up to me. The issue would be between your loved ones who know you. I don’t believe that the state has a right to decide what you Should Have wished. If you did not leave a Living Will and one of those four felt strongly enough that you would have wished to stay alive - then you would have contributed to the situation by not leaving objective documentation. Many of us make offhand remarks - how do others know if these are serious or done upon the spur of the moment?
What I want is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Disputation among loved ones, in the absence of a Living Will, creates reasonable doubt. In court cases, documentation is the standard best evidence of hearsay. Moral: Have a Living Will.
You would make a wonderful little Minister of Misinformation.
I stated that tests had not been recently done - Michael refused to have Terri tested. I provided factual links regarding this. I did not say that tests had never been performed.
Here’s a little clue: You do not have to read my posts. There are thousands of members on this board. It is very active. Read the ones by people who reaffirm and never challenge your world view. Your blood pressure will thank you.
The courts, acting as Terri’s guardian, decided that time and time again, yet it’s not enough proof for you. Sorry. You’ve directly contradicted yourself which makes you a liar in my book, although that does include the possibility that you’re lying to yourself as well as to the rest of us.
The exact standard of proof which was met in order for doctors to remove a feeding tube from Terri Schiavo’s stomach is the one you say you want, and yet you still say she was murdered and euthanized against her will.
How can I possibly have respect for you?
CJ
I really don’t care if an anonymous person on the internet respects me or not.
You have misinterpreted or not understood my posts. That is your problem; not mine.
I do not believe that Terri’s wishes were proven beyond a reasonable doubt - the fact that One Judge did (whose decisions were never really reviewed - procedural reviews were performed to make sure he did not make an illegal decision). I do not believe in the infallibility of the court system. I have not said that the decision was illegal - merely that I think it was wrong. In our society, is there no room for disagreement on the correctness of a decision or outcome?
Legally, the tube was allowed to be removed. This doesn’t make it moral.
As I have said repeatedly - people with different value systems are not going to agree on the rightness of the outcome in this case. If you are unable to respect that someone can rationally disagree with you, then so be it. Join the other little minds who are unable to brook opposition.
I also challenge you to find One Posts by me in which I advocated violating the court order.
Here’s a clue: you won’t find one.
Protesting a decision is a 1st Amendment Right. I respect the right of those who disagreed with the judge’s decision to speak out. I do not advocate breaking the law.
What difference do you think a Living Will would have made in this case? Suppose Terri Schiavo had indeed left an advance directive indicating that she did not want to be kept alive specifically by feeding tube. What difference do you think that would have made?
regards,
widdley
Actually wonderwench, I think you did advocate violating a court order. IIRC, you brought up the issue of the ice cube on the tongue. I could be wrong about that, if so, I apologize.
regards,
widdley
It would have eliminated the They Said vs. They Said drama. Documentation is the best evidence. This entire tragedy was due to the fact that her family did not believe that Terri would have wished to refuse medical treatment / nutrition. Given their Catholic beliefs, it is very reasonable for them to assume Terri would wish to be consistent with her Catholic upbrininging. Some have claimed that the Schindlers would have appealed if a Living Will did exist. Perhaps. I suspect they would have as well - but they would not have received support by those who view this issue as one of respecting an individual’s wishes (myself included).
Documentation would/may have put the issue to rest - and perhaps spared the agonizing series of (in the end) futile appeals.
If that’s the case, then I apologize. On the other hand, when I see some stranger on a message board insisting on overriding what I believe are the expressed wishes of an individual and spreading other blatant falsehoods, perhaps you can understand why I get a little nervous. I don’t want my family put to the expense of sustaining my body long after my soul has left it. I especially don’t like your implications that those who supported honoring Ms. Schiavo’s wishes are not religious, do not believe in the existence of the soul or are in favour of euthanizing the disabled. Like it or not, you have done all of those here and in GD.
I trust God enough to entrust my soul to His mercy when my time is done. I see no sense in having my body linger on when no higher brain function exists. I cannot foresee any circumstances under which people I love would insist on keeping me on life support until my cerebral cortex disintegrates and, since my soul would have long since departed, I suppose there wouldn’t me much I could do about it if I did. Still, the idea that some stranger on a message board who has never met me and knows comparatively little about who I am would call them murderers and immoral for not subjecting me to that is outrageous. I live in Pennsylvania. One of my own senators tried to insist on keeping Ms. Schiavo’s feeding tube in. Lord only knows what he’d do for someone who might conceivably vote for him.
You talk about respecting others’ beliefs, yet you’ve shown no respect for the views of others yourself until your last post and even now I’m skeptical.
CJ
For those of you keeping score at home, this is a lie too. What are we up to? 35? 50? I’ve lost count.
Gosh, I really wish someone would point out that it’s not the difference of opinion that has angered me, but the fact you continue to lie, ignore evidence, and mudsling. Oh, wait. I did. IN THE OP, in this thread twice, and in the original thread. Go figure that 4 pages later, that simple point still escapes you, ww. Color me surprised.
I would have like to see Michael allow the use of ice chips. I did not advocate violating the court order to do so.
The ‘position’ of the pro-life side is irrelevant. What’s important is the fruits of their actions. Had they gotten their way, extraordinary measures would have been employed to prevent Schiavo’s soul from returning to the Heavenly Father, regardless of her preference in the matter. Refusing to allow the technocrats to play God with the disposition of one’s soul is not in any way an endorsement of suicide.
So instead, we had the court system play God by judging what she Should Have wanted for the convenience of her family (estranged husband).