Berg Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 There is not question that I agree with you on this. The government is only responsible for defending our lives via National Security. They are not responsible for determining the extent of our medical conditions and whether we should live or die due to those conditions. 291092[/snapback] Exactly. Maybe you should run for office....
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 That's the issue here, no one can really KNOW her wishes or Michael's motivations. you have to choose to believe Michael. I'm smart enough to have my wishes written down and communicated to EVERYONE I know. 291153[/snapback] Michael didn't determine her wishes. The courts did, based on mutiple eyewitness testimonies, and at Michael's request, and as upheld in every appeal her parents have brought.
VABills Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 Michael didn't determine her wishes. The courts did, based on mutiple eyewitness testimonies, and at Michael's request, and as upheld in every appeal her parents have brought. 291174[/snapback] Except every eyewitness happened to end with -in-law as part of their title. (e.g., Mother-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-laws husband, etc....)
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 Except every eyewitness happened to end with -in-law as part of their title. (e.g., Mother-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-laws husband, etc....) 291182[/snapback] ????? And your point is that despite being upheld through 20+ appeals, the court's findings are still wrong because the witness list was stacked with people who actually knew her? This is why I'm posting on this subject. What's a good monkey sh-- fight without an actual crap-throwing monkey?
KRC Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 Exactly. Maybe you should run for office.... 291169[/snapback] Wow. I never thought of that.
VABills Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 Wow. I never thought of that. 291194[/snapback] Yeah maybe sometime you might win. Of course you probably have better odds then the current democrat candidate.
nobody Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 Yeah maybe sometime you might win. Of course you probably have better odds then the current democrat candidate. 291197[/snapback] There is no current democratic candidate. Nor republican candidate.
nobody Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 There is not question that I agree with you on this. The government is only responsible for defending our lives via National Security. They are not responsible for determining the extent of our medical conditions and whether we should live or die due to those conditions. 291092[/snapback] Doesn't state govt have a say in this matter?
KRC Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 Doesn't state govt have a say in this matter? 291221[/snapback] IMO, no. It is a personal matter not governmental on any level.
Gavin in Va Beach Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 IMO, no. It is a personal matter not governmental on any level. 291236[/snapback] I'd agree, unless a government program is footing the bill for medical expenses. Then the "government" has a right to an opinion on the matter...
KRC Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 I'd agree, unless a government program is footing the bill for medical expenses. Then the "government" has a right to an opinion on the matter... 291240[/snapback] Well, this gets back to the debate Rubes and I had regarding Healthcare reform. I feel it should be privatized, therefore eliminating government intervention.
nobody Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 IMO, no. It is a personal matter not governmental on any level. 291236[/snapback] I'm not talking what should or shouldn't be. But as the law stands now states have some say in the matter, don't they?
KRC Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 I'm not talking what should or shouldn't be. But as the law stands now states have some say in the matter, don't they? 291259[/snapback] I am not up on laws in all 50 states, but I say that yes, there is some say on the state level.
John Adams Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 Maybe its already happened, but I'm waiting for the far-right nut jobs to start saying "She's been off the tube for 13 days...she's flighing to stay alive...can't you see that? She's so strong!" 290983[/snapback] I was skimming the talk radio circuit last night and heard this several times. "This shows that she wants to live." Although the human body can live a long time when it's basically non-functioning. I heard the initial estimate of her remaining time as 1-2 weeks.
OGTEleven Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 Wrong - It is the spouse's decision by law. I'm not cold, just realistic. Her brain is fried, she's a useless blob of skin. 291116[/snapback] Calling another human being, whatever his or her condition, a useless blob of skin, or a misspelled name of a vegetable is not "realistic" or "funny". It is childish and obnoxious beyond description. You do not define what life is for the rest of us. What do your descriptions contribute to the thread? Nothing. They serve to purposely annoy others while denigrating a person. Congratulations.
RkFast Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 Calling another human being, whatever his or her condition, a useless blob of skin, or a misspelled name of a vegetable is not "realistic" or "funny". It is childish and obnoxious beyond description. You do not define what life is for the rest of us. What do your descriptions contribute to the thread? Nothing. They serve to purposely annoy others while denigrating a person. Congratulations. 291305[/snapback] And whats the diffference between the above and every gurgle, fart and eye blink by Ms. Schiavo being interpreted by people who are closer to garbagemen than M.D. as her showing she wants to live??? Whats the difference between the above and using a five year video tape of a balloon being waved in her face as "proof" of her lucidness? BillsNYC description is fifty times more "realistic" than any of that bull sh--. At least it is founded in medical FACT.
OGTEleven Posted March 31, 2005 Posted March 31, 2005 And whats the diffference between the above and every gurgle, fart and eye blink by Ms. Schiavo being interpreted by people who are closer to garbagemen than M.D. as her showing she wants to live??? Whats the difference between the above and using a five year video tape of a balloon being waved in her face as "proof" of her lucidness? BillsNYC description is fifty times more "realistic" than any of that bull sh--. At least it is founded in medical FACT. 291326[/snapback] The difference is that is does not uselessy ridicule and demean a human being.
UConn James Posted March 31, 2005 Posted March 31, 2005 You do not define what life is for the rest of us. 291305[/snapback] Nor should you or Tom Delay and his ilk be defining what life is for anyone else. Each person should act in accordance to what they believe for areas where "life" is debatable. If it's not right for you, then don't do it. This case has shown nothing if not the need for a written living will to clear up family squabbles.
OGTEleven Posted March 31, 2005 Posted March 31, 2005 Nor should you or Tom Delay and his ilk be defining what life is for anyone else. Each person should act in accordance to what they believe for areas where "life" is debatable. If it's not right for you, then don't do it. This case has shown nothing if not the need for a written living will to clear up family squabbles. 291491[/snapback] Alll I friggin said was I took offense to him calling people blobs of skin and/or vegetables. He has been making fun of Terri for weeks and I find it offensive. I did not say one damn thing indicating I or anyone else should dictate what happens. This part of the discussion was not even about whether or not she should be kept on life support. So please get down from your holier than thou soap box and bring your ilk with you Mr. pompous.
Adam Posted March 31, 2005 Posted March 31, 2005 Nor should you or Tom Delay and his ilk be defining what life is for anyone else. Each person should act in accordance to what they believe for areas where "life" is debatable. If it's not right for you, then don't do it. This case has shown nothing if not the need for a written living will to clear up family squabbles. 291491[/snapback] That would be called anarchy
Recommended Posts