The Dark Lord might not like it.
As a secular liberal, knowing that I’m doing Satan’s work is all the reward I need.
No, but I respect the decision by not going around looking to kill OJ or lying to get my point across. There were tests for swallowing and a PET scan was not needed because a better CT scan was made, your statements that they never did the proper tests were LIES.
Stupidly repeating like a parrot what was demonstrated not be true is your prerogative, just pointing the obvious here.
She was worse than even extremely disabled and with no cerebral cortex to then call it human.
After all that was said and showed to you, even telling you to go unfuck yourself would be kind. In case you are missing it, that last statement of yours was an insult to families that have to make decisions like the Schiavos at this very moment elsewhere in America, and thank god, there is no government interfering with them…
… yet.
Inaccurate. Michael and his relatives are the ones who claimed this. Her parents and family dispute it. You may choose who is more credible just as I have the right o also do so.
[quote]
You continue, despite mountains of proof to the contrary, to insist that there was reasonable doubt that Terri Schiavo was in a Persistent Vegetative State with no hope of recovery. There was not. [/quope]
I have said absolutely nothing about the possibility of Terri being able to recover. I do not believe such a recovery was possible. Her brain was severely damaged beyond the point of repair. The issue for me is how we treat severely disabled people. Are they humans or dry husks (the lovely terms someone here used). I think they are still human beings with a soul, and that it is not for me to decide if they should live or die. If they have left a record beyond a Reasonable Doubt that they wish to refuse medical treatment, then we should honor their individual autonomy and right to do so. Terri did not do so in this case. You choose on which side of life and death you would like to err. You choose death; I choose life.
A rose by any other name would smell so sweet.
What is it called to withhold nutrition from a non-terminal person?
You violated your agreement before I even posted via your condescending attitude.
I have stated several times that the issue is one of deeply rooted core values - you are not going to convince me to alter my beliefs - nor do I expect you to alter yours. I do have the right of expression - which those on your side of the debate seem to be unable to tolerate.
Vive la difference.
Well, I know that I can’t speak for everyone but at least in my case there is just something about the complete control that I have over the situation that really spins my crank. The thought of me standing over the shell of a human, who no longer has anything resembling sentience and pulling the plug…Mmmmm! It is like a God trip. And What the hell, God sends us earthquakes, tsunamis, disease and all sorts of death. I don’t think he will begrudge my ending the life of a few vegetables.
Naturally, if the State does it it isn’t as good. But I can still get pretty darn thrilled about it vicariously. And I know that I am not alone! No doubt you saw the news coverage and perhaps even were eyewitness to all of the wild celebratory parties that the Filthy Liberals™ were throwing after she died. Hell, here is Seattle we had parades with hookers and fireworks! Good times, man. Good times.
Like continue being dishonest?
But you are assuming that those who disagree with you are doing so because of their political affiliation.
If you honestly believe that, why are you even bothering to post here? The entire purpose of this board is debate; that is, to convince others of the superiority of their beliefs and values through the process of rational discourse. If you are not willing to reconsider your own beliefs, and you don’t think you can convince anyone else to come around to your beliefs, what purpose is served by your participation here?
No one here is arguing against your right to hold any opinion you want. No one is demanding that you be banned for your opinion. Respect for your right to have an opinion is entirely seperate from respect for your opinion itself, or respect for you as a person. Or, as I said earlier, freedom of speech does not equal freedom from criticism. As much as you have the right to express your opinion that Terry Schiavo should not have been allowed to die, others have an equal right to express contempt for your opinion and, in the pit, contempt for you for holding that opinion.
That’s a lovely sentiment. Considering the fifteen years of court cases, the months of media frenzy, and, on this board, the thousands of post dedicated to Terry Schiavo, I do not see the relevance of it to this debate. There are damned few issues in American society that have been discussed as heavily and as hotly as this.
My, what a screed of gentility.
You are wrong, but gleefully and blindly so. It is so sparkly, I can barely stand to look at it.
*March 2, 2000
The Schindlers file a petition with Judge Greer to allow “swallowing” tests to be performed on Terri Schiavo to determine if she can consume—or learn to consume—nutrients on her own.
March 7, 2000
Judge Greer denies the Schindlers’ petition to perform “swallowing” tests on Terri Schiavo.*
*September 17, 2003
Judge Greer orders the removal of the PEG tube to take place on October 15, 2003. He also rejects the Schindlers’ request that Terri Schiavo be given therapy to learn how to eat without the tube.*
There is much much more. You may benefit by reading it.
This post is meaningless without pics.
Another lie, testimony also came from friends of Mrs. Schiavo.
I don’t need to convince you, I only need to show to everyone else how untrustworthy you are, that is the only thing needed to then prevent anyone else from assuming you are even with a little bit of evidence in your favor.
One thing is nagging at my mind. Dio (and others) uses the term “clear and convincing” to characterize the standard of evidence that the court was satisfied with as establishing what Terri Schaivo’s wishes were. OTOH, wonderwench repeatedly returns to the term “reasonable doubt” (as in “beyond a reasonable doubt”) to characterize a standard of evidence that was not met before the court.
The continued talking past one another that is going on here might be hinging on how everybody views these standards. I suspect that on the “agree with the court” side everybody holds at least one of the following opinions:
(1.) The “clear and convincing” standard is the same as the “reasonable doubt” standard, and it has been met.
(2.) The “clear and convincing” standard is less rigorous than the “reasonable doubt” standard; nevertheless it is a sufficient standard for reaching a morally (ethically) correct conclusion.
(3.) The “clear and convincing” standard is less rigorous than the “reasonable doubt” standard; nevertheless, the “reasonable doubt” standard has been met.
Note that in all three of the above alternatives, the courts reached the right conclusion.
I suspect that on the wonderwench side, one of the following statements describes her position:
(A.) The “clear and convincing” standard is the same as the “reasonable doubt” standard, and it has not been met.
(B.) The “clear and convincing” standard is less rigorous than the “reasonable doubt” standard; therefore it is an insufficient standard for reaching a morally (ethically) correct conclusion.
(C.) The “clear and convincing” standard is less rigorous than the “reasonable doubt” standard; nevertheless, not even the “clear and convincing” standard has been met.
Any of these statements may logically lead to wonderwench’s position that the courts got it wrong.
If people will identify the statement that best describes their position, it will be easier for everybody to define exactly what they are arguing for and against.
Me, I’m a (2.) How about you wonderwench? I’d like to point out that no matter which statement best describes your position, you will be asked to support your argument that the court erred in accepting “clear and convincing” as sufficient, or your argument that the “reasonable doubt” standard has not been met. I would also like to point out that Michael Schaivo’s putative motivations are not going to be relevant to your argument. Further, if you insist on bringing them into your argument on the rightness or wrongness of the court’s conclusion, you will be making yourself appear to be a wretched, vindictive, slandering little harridan. And you will be obfuscating, rather than elucidating, your argument. I’m sure you don’t believe it is in your interest to do that. :dubious:
Without constant assistance she was terminal.
Does it really matter if it was food or a respirator? Both are possible with present technology, why the magical association with food.
Would you somehow see it as more or less cruel to shut off a respirator.
wonderwench, how do reconcile that cite with holmes’ earlier cite in this post that swallowing test had been performed regularly from 1990 to 1997, test which Terri consistently failed, and which were halted because they were deemed both fruitless and dangerous to her health?
Riddle me this, Miller: do you like bananas?
Of course there is more, and wonderwench is being a stinky liar by omission for ** pretending ** to ignore what others pointed out:
And he did it in this thread, the ignorance of **wonderwench ** shows in spades. And once again, I am not talking to this pitee, I am happy just showing to everybody how silly **wonderwench ** is.
No, I’m not much of a Woody Allen fan.
Oh, so now we have the legal precedent that offhand comments made while watching made for TV movies (most likely on Lifetime) are best evidence.
And all you have done is to display you complete and utter intolerance for any viewpoints which differ from your own.
I prefer Girard’s Champagne dressing, btw.
How could it possibly further damage her to place an ice cube on her tongue to relieve her suffering as she was slowly being dehydrated?
No honey, I’m intolerant of ignorance. I don’t mind that you use your freedom to speak, but at least make sure you’re not throwing it away. Horrible way to waste one of the highest-regarded rights in the free world.
You sound very much like a parrot with these oft-repeated lines like those of us who disagree with you being “intolerant”, and how those of us who pillory you are “afraid” of your truth.
Sam
There is absolutely nothing to be gained by ever engaging wonderwench and lekatt. Save your time, breath, and sanity and ignore every lie that comes out of their mouth. You’ll thank me for it later.
Considering the repetitive nature of the Plug Pullers, the same can be said of you.
Here’s a little clue: Not everyone shares your beliefs. People who do not share your beliefs are neither parrots nor ignorant.
It’s sad that your definition of ignorance is anyone who deigns to not tow your party line.