BeeZarre

DTOM - are you 100% sure that he's being 100% truthful?

but yeah, i think the most humane way to deal with this kind of situation would be chemically. quick and sensitive to human dignity.

it's a very sad affair. but it's not right to keep her soulless body around for the comfort of others.

I don't understand what her husband has to gain by not letting them assume guardianship and take care of her.

DTOM - I know what you're saying, but I can't think that way. I doubt her parents can, either. They love their daughter and you have to consider what they're going through.

I don't understand what her husband has to gain by not letting them assume guardianship and take care of her.

I think they just love their daughter and are probably hoping and praying for a miracle.

Such as this:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/11/earlyshow/
main673281.shtml

Brandon9000 wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

I welcome goverment interference in private life when the issue is whether to kill someone or not. Seems appropriate and reasonable.

Show me where the government has a compelling interest in this case.

The government has a compelling interest in determining under what conditions someone may be euthanized. It may well be that the woman's husband has an ulterior motive, and the law should protect her from this possibility. She is perfectly healthy and is not being "allowed to die" but rather killed. The government certainly has an interest in determining when someone can be killed, and how the helpless of society are treated.

The particulars of the case were resolved (I believe) in the state's courts. One might assume they are competent, and have had the rights of the helpless in mind.

Brandon9000 wrote:

There are many legal questions about this case that ought to be answered. Terri Schiavo has never been represented by council, even though she is the one whose food will now be witheld. Had her parents not existed, who would have spoken for her at all?

Again, one might assume that the courts have answered these questions. (Multiple times, in fact, as I recall hearing about this case on a number of occasions.)

Brandon9000 wrote:

Asking the question which the poster did, in and of itself makes me wonder about the poster's capacity for empathy.

As for empathy, I happen to empathize with the husband in this case.

As for Frist, DeLay, et. al., it seems that this is a case of members of congress attempting to intervene in the internal business of a state. I thought conservatives were against that....

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

I welcome goverment interference in private life when the issue is whether to kill someone or not. Seems appropriate and reasonable.

Show me where the government has a compelling interest in this case.

The government has a compelling interest in determining under what conditions someone may be euthanized. It may well be that the woman's husband has an ulterior motive, and the law should protect her from this possibility. She is perfectly healthy and is not being "allowed to die" but rather killed. The government certainly has an interest in determining when someone can be killed, and how the helpless of society are treated.

The particulars of the case were resolved (I believe) in the state's courts. One might assume they are competent, and have had the rights of the helpless in mind.

You asked me to demonstrate the government's compelling interest. Don't you remember? I did.

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

There are many legal questions about this case that ought to be answered. Terri Schiavo has never been represented by council, even though she is the one whose food will now be witheld. Had her parents not existed, who would have spoken for her at all?

Again, one might assume that the courts have answered these questions. (Multiple times, in fact, as I recall hearing about this case on a number of occasions.)

Or one might assume that this travesty of justice stinks from one end to the other, and that it needs to be examined. Your faith in Judge Greer is touching, though. Why did you not address the questions I asked you above? Please do so now.

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Asking the question which the poster did, in and of itself makes me wonder about the poster's capacity for empathy.

As for empathy, I happen to empathize with the husband in this case.

Why no. You appear to agree with the husband. There is a very pathetic, helpless person involved who will now be starved to death, and you show no sign whatever of empathy. One wonders if you have any.

DrewDad wrote:

As for Frist, DeLay, et. al., it seems that this is a case of members of congress attempting to intervene in the internal business of a state. I thought conservatives were against that....

There is a balance of power between the federal government and the state. That's a legal argument, though, and far less important than preventing a murder.

Have you ever loved anyone more than anything else, Brandon? If you have, you'll understand the empathy that is felt for Ms. Schiavo and her husband.

Brandon9000 wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

I welcome goverment interference in private life when the issue is whether to kill someone or not. Seems appropriate and reasonable.

Show me where the government has a compelling interest in this case.

The government has a compelling interest in determining under what conditions someone may be euthanized. It may well be that the woman's husband has an ulterior motive, and the law should protect her from this possibility. She is perfectly healthy and is not being "allowed to die" but rather killed. The government certainly has an interest in determining when someone can be killed, and how the helpless of society are treated.

The particulars of the case were resolved (I believe) in the state's courts. One might assume they are competent, and have had the rights of the helpless in mind.

You asked me to demonstrate the government's compelling interest. Don't you remember? I did.

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

There are many legal questions about this case that ought to be answered. Terri Schiavo has never been represented by council, even though she is the one whose food will now be witheld. Had her parents not existed, who would have spoken for her at all?

Again, one might assume that the courts have answered these questions. (Multiple times, in fact, as I recall hearing about this case on a number of occasions.)

Or one might assume that this travesty of justice stinks from one end to the other, and that it needs to be examined. Your faith in Judge Greer is touching, though. Why did you not address the questions I asked you above? Please do so now.

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Asking the question which the poster did, in and of itself makes me wonder about the poster's capacity for empathy.

As for empathy, I happen to empathize with the husband in this case.

Why no. You appear to agree with the husband. There is a very pathetic, helpless person involved who will now be starved to death, and you show no sign whatever of empathy. One wonders if you have any.

DrewDad wrote:

As for Frist, DeLay, et. al., it seems that this is a case of members of congress attempting to intervene in the internal business of a state. I thought conservatives were against that....

There is a balance of power between the federal government and the state. That's a legal argument, though, and far less important than preventing a murder.

I addressed all of your points; you may not agree with my position, but I believe I made it perfectly clear.

There are many legal questions about this case that ought to be answered. Terri Schiavo has never been represented by council, even though she is the one whose food will now be witheld. Had her parents not existed, who would have spoken for her at all?

Your hypocrisy shine though, though. You are willing to force your personal views on others so long as it causes no inconvenience for yourself.

Starving someone to death is not merciful and not much of a show of empathy.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Starving someone to death is not merciful and not much of a show of empathy.

I can only think you don't have the experience of being with someone who is dying, and needs to be told it's all right to stop fighting, that it's all right to stop the pain and the suffering.

Allowing someone a dignified death is difficult, but it is sometimes the only way you can show love and empathy. Being selfish in this sort of situation is simply wrong.