I started this thread, what does it say about me? You haven’t answered a single post of mine, so I’m wondering what that says about me too. Because I value the opinion of such a fine, moral person like yourself.
Serious question here. How is it not making that very decision by keeping someone’s body alive via artifical means?
You are going to have to post a cite from the judge’s ruling to support this. Until then, it is just another unsubstantiated claim from someone who is desperate to shore up a belief system that has no rational basis.
Assumptions:
- An individual’s life belongs to him.
- Said individual has the right to decide when his life is no longer worth living.
Value Judgement:
- We do not have the right to decide if another individual’s life is no longer worth living nor to decide what they should decide if they could.
- Life is the preferable state for a human; we should err on the side of life.
Personal Opionion:
- God gave humans reasoning brains, curiosity and abilities for a reason; one of the outcomes of these is the vast amount of tecnology and medications we have available to enhance our quality and duration of life. There is nothing wrong with using technology to sustain ife.
I have never suggested using medical technology to prolong a person’s life against his will. My concern has been that we should not make that decision - but should carry out the confirmed wishes of the patient. When making an irrevocable decision which results in death, we should be sure beyond a reasonable doubt. I would rather that we err on the side of life - which was clearly not done in Terri’s case.
I don’t think this is particularly extreme - and am quite dismayedd at the vehemence that those who side with the Court’s decisions have displayed.
What part of “clear and convincing evidence” do you not understand? The burden was met. Fuck off.
Any time you want to answer my questions, go right ahead.
“I would rather that we err on the side of life - which was clearly not done in Terri’s case.”
Clearly? After years of judicial reviews and appeals, I would say that the chance for error was zero. The highly qualified doctors in charge of her case thought that there was no error.
Folks, wonderwench is not interested in the facts of the case - she’s made up her mind and facts be damned. She’s only interested in her opinion, and it seems that her opinion has been unencumbered by the thought process.
This is what rankles so much, wonderwench. This is why you are experiencing so much hostility now. It’s not your opinion, it’s how you have formed your opinion, and your rejection of the cold hard facts of the case that has generated this lengthy thread.
You are not supporting your opinion from a factual standpoint, you are trying to support your opinion based on the emotionally-charged catch phrases that you picked up from the Schindler’s website or the hard-right-wing-fundamentalist-type glurge that’s floating around. All of that aided and reinforced, I’m sure, by your own “deeply rooted core beliefs (unexamined prejudices and bias)”
DtC previously said to ww, “You have also shown a marked contempt for the mission of this message board.”
It is a shame that this message board doesn’t have a function, a classification similar to “BANNED” or “SUSPENDED” that is simply called “SHUNNED.” A mode that allows an individual to post, but only the poster can see their own posts - nobody else can.
This penalty to be imposed on those that demonstrate willful and egregious disregard of clearly articulated and documented facts.
You know, after reading this thread, I have been motivated to err on the side of life with regards to my grandmother. She’s been buried these past five years, and I’ll wager she has about as much cortical matter left as Terri Schaivo does, but according to the wonderwrenches of the world, we should dig her up and insert a feeding tube, beacuse she didn’t tell us not to.
Or, for the sarcasm impaired: For the love of Ieasu Xhristos and dead fucking puppies, what will it take to make you nimrods realize that dead is fucking dead?
Ah, now what fun would* that * be?
withdrawing attention tube…
ww, you’ve proven time after time in these threads that you’re an uninformed idiot. I would gladly respect your opinion if only it were based on reality or your personal research of the case of Terri Schiavo. You have yet to throw up a cogent argument and when presented with factual information you simply continue along your merry way and continue to repeat the same falsehoods (read lies) over and over and over again. The only purpose you seem to be serving on this topic is to suck the energy out of good posters who have been more than willing to supply you with links to information which you refuse to read. I do not consider myself one of those good posters but I do know a persistent shit for brains when I “see” one on a board like this. Where I come from they are called “trolls”. You are rude, inconsiderate, you lie through your keyboard, you are incredibly dishonest and when proven wrong instead of doing the honest thing and admitting you are wrong…you continue to lie.
widdley
I’m inclined to second that motion. All in favor?
regards,
widdley
No fun at all, for us, I guess. Perhaps a Mod making the announcement in ATMB that “So-and-so is now SHUNNED for a period of one month due to his or her willful disregard for those principles we hold most dear” might be somewhat satisfactory.
I really don’t advocate this, BTW…there’s always a chance that someone might make a point within the general pile-on that eventually gets through to the offending party.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the pile-on that occured in this thread has caused ww to look more carefully at her own beliefs and re-evaluate her stance. If she has, she might be too proud/too embarassed to admit that, at this point.
Perhaps the best thing to do is let the matter drop, for now, and allow ww time to reflect.
Probably the best possible end for this thread.
“AYE”
WW, you’re still being an ignorant, cross-bearing dumbfuck. Please Cease and desist. You’ve shown clear and convincing evidence that you can clearly not be convinced of facts and continually miss-state the facts of the case, quote glurge and what you refer to as “opinion”(no doubt a way to hide behind oft-repeated lies spewed by your life-sided brethren without furnishing proof), and have generally no fucking clue what you are talking about.
Sam
Absolute comedy gold! Either that or wonderwench has just performed the longest ongoing woosh I’ve ever seen on this board. Surely no-one can have that little grasp on the concept of irony.
snerk
splutter
Zoe, you so owe me. 
Anyway, as to my meager contribution (on topic) to this thread, I can’t possibly reiterate better what’s already been done so four billion times and with enough substantiation to satisfy the SCOTUS. But what motivated me to add my .02 (besides the aforementioned funny) is that the attitude displayed by people like wonderwench makes me very sad and even more disheartened that it’s seen every. single. day. By a vast majority.
Having dealt with these folks (and indeed, even being related to them), facts will never dissuade their opinions. I suppose that’s obvious from this entire exchange. However, although I do my best to respect all differences across the board of humanity, why are some expected to consider all the information available to make an informed decision while others gleefully ignore all and sundry without nary a regard to answering direct questions, at all mostly, concerning said? Shouldn’t consideration be a two way street?
::: going now to clean all the shit I spewed off my monitor :::
:eek:
And exactly how do you sit at your computer desk?
[Foghorn Leghorn]
That’s a bad, I say that’s a bad case of logorrhea you got there, boy.
[/FL]
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot 
I was under the impression that was exactly what you have been suggesting since page one.
Allow me to interject here. If I understand Wondie correctly, she thinks that, barring a written statement to the effect that no extraordinary means should be taken, benefit of the doubt should be given to the premise that the person would want to be kept alive. I don’t personally have a problem with that notion as a general rule, except that not everybody has ever thought to put such instructions in writing, and sometimes the decision simply has to be made by the person closest to the patient. That might be a parent or sibling or, oh, gee, maybe a spouse? and in the Schiavo case there was a very good reason to accept that (a)her husband knew her wishes and was abiding by them and (b) Terry Schiavo the person was already dead, but her body didn’t know it yet.
I"m pulling this quote from the HPV vaccine thread to avoid hijacking that one further:
OK. I think we might be able to go somewhere with this. (I could just be deluding myself, but…)
You are correct. The government has no business butting in and euthanizing anyone. I think that probably the original case should have been dismissed, because the decision to end treatment was never the court’s business at all.
Interestingly, if the government had minded its own business, Terry Schiavo’s existence would have ended 7 years ago, as Michael as her spouse had every legal right to make that decision himself. Government involvement did nothing but delay her death. Michael didn’t have to agree to court involvement; he could have just said “Screw all y’all, I’m pulling the plug” and been done with it. (I daresay by now he may wish he’d done just that.)
In the absense of a living will, the right to continue or discontinue treatment lies with the next of kin. The courts’ recent decisions on Florida’s state legislation’s and US Congress’s attempts to butt in were an affirmation of that. “Stay out of this, it’s none of your business.”
In this thread you are advocating government involvement when you say that the courts should have “erred on the side of life.” You can’t have it both ways. Either the government should be involved and make the decisions for us regarding the end of life, or it should not. Just because you agree with the final decision doesn’t mean it came about in the right way.