** wonderwench** Ivylass, has stated that she changed her mind once she looked at the evidence for herself. There are many people who changed their minds once they looked at what happened and not what they believed happened.
You’re right, there are people in this world, that despite the evidence that their worldview is wrong, will never change their minds. They don’t need respect; they need pity.
For they waste the one true gift we have as humans.
Riddle me this: Was Terri a human being?
On 2002, the judge on the verdict almost had to say it, and I will say it: the doctors for the Schindlers were quacks:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder11-02.txt
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5994647&postcount=25
Mind you, this conservative judge was expelled from his church because he decided against the Schindlers, just because he had to follow the evidence.
Meaningless when there is there is evidence against it.
And here it shows how you are being obtuse: virtually all agreee that a severely damaged life has to be spared, just not if you choose to end it when the only way to continue “surviving” is with a machine, Mrs. Schiavo life was beyond damaged.
As it was pointed before, it was not just the husband say so, but several other persons that came forward with testimony of that Mrs. Schiavo wanted.
Except the ones of mine, Mrs. Schiavo and more than 75% of Americans that think you are NOT appreciating individual rights here.
Because there are yahoos in power that agree with you and are trying to pass laws to make minced meat out of individual’s rights regarding life support.
Respect for diversity ends when science enters and shows how out of it the doctors putting forward statements claiming Mrs. Schiavo could recuperate or denying the cortex was dead are shown to be quacks.
As the discussions before showed, this case is an attack not only on judges, but on basic science, your interpretation has been used to put forward an agenda that will affects us all, not groovy at all.
Stop insulting the fine acting work of Frank Gorshin and Jim Carrey with this unauthorized use of their tag line.
Further, is it even within your ability as a human being to tell the truth and not indulge in manipulative bullshit? Or are you just some shill for the monolithic fundies who believe they have to force the ONE TRUE WAY on everyone?
Yes, and there are people who think we faked the moon landing. They too dispute the “scientfic” facts. However, a critical mind can look at the whole picture and determin what is true and what is not.
I celebrate your diversity, you are probably a very nice person. And obviously have strong beliefs. But you must understand that the statements you are making are based on those same beliefs, not on facts. As long as you continue to do that, people will keep pitting you.
Yup. And as a human being, she did not want to be kept alive on life support. She said as much to her husband and MULTIPLE friends. She said it enough that different judges all agreed she said it, years afterward! Why would you want to keep a human being alive against their obvious wishes? Unless you are suggesting that all those judges wanted her dead. In which case I want to know what they would gain out of such a thing.
She was, and me, as another human being, says to please pull the plug if I am in a similar situation. Thank you very much.
The evidence says that that human being would have wanted it just the same.
Yes, and as such, she deserves to have her wishes respected. Because there was a dispute regarding what those wishes were, the courts are the final arbiter. They took testimony, examined the evidence, and determined that Terri wanted to decline medical intervention, including a feeding tube. Just because it didn’t go the way you wanted does not make it “murder”, or “starvation” or any of the other buzz words favored by the “culture of living death” you espouse.
I do not espouse a culture of living death. I espouse a value for individual life. I do not believe that there was evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that she would have chosen to die in the manner she did. You can choose the side upon which you wish our society to err. I have an equal right to choose.
If we are going to have euthanasia, let’s at least be honest about it and allow a more humane method.
Quoting from the 2002 verdict:
[bolding mine]
So much for the doctors who dispute the scientific facts…
No, you are imposing how you would wish to be treated in a similar circumstance. Put that in your own Living Will - but don’t assume that all other human beings would wish that treatment.
That is the height of arrogance.
You are neglecting the fact that Michael denied tests to be performed for several years.
I’d say your willful ignorance, lies, and projecting are the height of arrogance.
And yours is an attack on belief systems which do not support the secular view.
You are neglecting the fact that your sources are full of shit and so are you.
Surely right up there at those heights would be the arrogance of assuming that a person would want their corpse to be kept artificially animated for many years after their death?
Daniel
** wonderwench** Which tests. Be specfic. Which tests did he deny for several years? So them to us. I have an open mind, I invite you to show the tests which were denied and the reasons why…or do the reasons why don’t matter?
Wow! What a convincing argument.
I’m impressed. Was Ward Churchill one of your professors, perchance?
And your segment of the belief system is in the midst of a propaganda war over a dead woman to score political points.
And you are obtusely ignoring that they tested her again to reach this verdict.
Willful ignorant you are.
Is Randall Terry one of your ministers?