0
   

Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

 
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Apr, 2005 07:02 pm
Actually Michael had wanted to join the church of Scientology but they required that he perform an initiation by killing his wife, Judge Greer was let in on this requirement because he too wanted to become a Scientologist and a Rosicrucian as well. The lawyers were just in it for the cash and future book rights. It is widely believed that several members of a online forum known as Able2know were providing consultation services (currently known as "the usual suspects") and a conspiracy between two of these a2kers came up with the original idea of using starvation as the methodology after their initial suggestion of strangulation failed. Michael and his female friend (and children) will be leaving for an as yet unamed planet as soon as the "others" pick them up where they will live blissfully everafter. (Judge Greer will renounce is membership in the Baptist Church and convert to Catholicism) Tom Delay will announce he will be accused by the god hating liberals in Congress of aiding and abetting the "heart attack" of Jerry Falwell. All nine members of the Supremes wil have their faces on McDonalds supersize cola cups with the caption "have you seen this person?call 555-0911 immediately to report their location for their prompt submission training at Sugarland Texas. Terri is actually alive and well living in Oxnard California under the assumed name of Babe Lazarus.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Apr, 2005 07:33 pm
Imposed Death
Quote:
Vatican: Schiavo's Death 'Cruel'

Thursday, March 31, 2005

"The circumstances of the death of Ms. Terri Schiavo have rightly disturbed consciences," Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valization."

Cardinal Renato Martino, a top Vatican official, said Schiavo's death was a "human tragedy, but also an ethical, juridical and cultural tragedy." He told reporters her loss of life in a hospice in Florida to a "death sentence executed through a cruel method."

"We are against the death penalty, and that was practically a death penalty that was inflicted on her," Martino said. "That was not a natural death. It was an imposed death."

"When you deprive somebody of food and water, what else is it? Nothing else but murder," Martino said, adding that he was speaking on the case "according to the teaching of the pope." The pontiff has spoken on behalf of providing food and water, even through artificial means, to patients like Schiavo.

Pope John Paul II was informed Schiavo's death, Martino said. The cardinal likened the pope's frail health, including resorting to a feeding tube, to Schiavo's case.

The "comparison is easy," Martino said. "Everybody will do all the best to keep him alive, to feed him the way it can be done."

Before the Vatican statement Thursday, the Holy See had left comment in the hands of Martino, who heads the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, and other prominent church officials.

"One hopes that from this dramatic experience there matures in public opinion a greater awareness of human dignity, and that it brings greater protection for life even at the legal level," Navarro-Valls said Thursday.

Speaking of Schiavo, another leading Vatican official, Portuguese Cardinal Jose Saraiva Martins, said "an attack against life is an attack against God, who is the author of life."

The cardinal said John Paul "teaches us not only with his suffering, but also with his teaching the great respect for life. Life is the most precious thing we have."

Martino, asked who should be held responsible for Schiavo's death, replied: "the judges, her husband, whoever denied access" to feeding. The cardinal had previously appealed for Schiavo to remain on the feeding tube, which was removed by court order March 18.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152087,00.html
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Apr, 2005 07:34 pm
Quote, "In theory, aren't we all accountable for our behavior on judgment day?" Some of us are atheists and do not believe in "judgement day." To assume we all live by the same morals is way off the track. Most people who were able to vote in a poll on whether they would like to be kept alive by artificial means or die without opted to die without by a majority of over 70 percent. I will assume Terri would have wished the same until proven otherwise.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Apr, 2005 07:34 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
To willy nilly accuse anybody we disagree with the most heinous of crimes and motives is not only unfair but sinister.

Finally, a statement with which I agree wholeheartedly!
You and your cohorts may form a line. I'm sure George Bush will accept apologies from the sinister.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Apr, 2005 12:36 am
Dyslexia
Dys, I heard that Jerry Farwell offered to marry Michael Schiavo and Jody, the mother of his two children, any time they were ready to make the commitment---and for paltry $40,000 fee.

I also heard Randall Terry, of Operation Rescue, offered to be Michael's Best Man for $10,000.

Funny, I remember that dollar amount of $40,000 from somewhere. Now I recall, that is the amount of money remaining from the trust fund set up for Terri's care. But Michael probably can't access the money because the trust is controlled by a trustee named by the courts when the trust was established following the lawsuit.

Too bad.


BBB
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Apr, 2005 12:42 am
LOL, Dys! Laughing
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Apr, 2005 06:15 am
Quote:
"When you deprive somebody of food and water, what else is it? Nothing else but murder," Martino said, adding that he was speaking on the case "according to the teaching of the pope." The pontiff has spoken on behalf of providing food and water, even through artificial means, to patients like Schiavo.



It can't be called murder because murder implies malice and I don't believe anyone is suggesting Michael's merciful actions were out of malice. The word murder is inappropriate for this case and is used simply to garner outrage over a private family matter for the purpose of furthering a fanatical cause.

Quote:
mur·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders
v. tr.
To kill (another human) unlawfully.
To kill brutally or inhumanly.


The action was neither unlawful nor committed with malice nor was it inhumane or brutal.

Her body was allowed to die as her brain had done in 1990; and that was mercy killing. And thank goodness.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Apr, 2005 06:20 am
Re: Dyslexia
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Dys, I heard that Jerry Farwell offered to marry Michael Schiavo and Jody, the mother of his two children, any time they were ready to make the commitment---and for paltry $40,000 fee.

I also heard Randall Terry, of Operation Rescue, offered to be Michael's Best Man for $10,000.

Funny, I remember that dollar amount of $40,000 from somewhere. Now I recall, that is the amount of money remaining from the trust fund set up for Terri's care. But Michael probably can't access the money because the trust is controlled by a trustee named by the courts when the trust was established following the lawsuit.

Too bad.


BBB


Yes, BBB that was my thought too. Where did you get this information. I thought to go look, but I haven't had the time yes. If the figure is correct, forty thousand is hardly enough money to kill for. And it wouldn't have paid for much more of the inhumane treatment being dished out by her parents and sibs either. Who was going to pay after the money ran out?
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Apr, 2005 07:20 am
I know I must be coming into this information very late, but I think the point about the funding of a movement as motive looms large.

This from a round-up of bloggers in Slate:

Quote:
The Schindlers' list: Terri Schiavo's parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, have agreed to sell a list of their financial supporters through the conservative direct-mail outfit Response Unlimited. "If you still think that this case has anything to do with a 'culture of life,' or is even just a poorly calculated political ploy, then you haven't been paying close enough attention," writes Scott Jones at round-table blog thought.mechanics. "Nope, this whole thing is really about one thing: funding a movement. All you have to do is follow the money."

Plenty of others agree. "I can't help thinking [this] is the proof, the smoking gun, of these peoples' politics. It has burrowed further into my head than Tom DeLay turning his own father's life support off, or Bush's Texas Bill validating the same even if the family disagrees," writes "hungry mind" Barista. "Everything is For Sale in America," declares a newbie blogger at Cult Of The Turtle. "Expect a minimum of 2 book deals and 2 made-for-tv-moves out of this."


And once again, it doesn't seem like the left/liberal/progressives will gain anything substantial from all the turmoil. The right-to-life folks get a list of 6000 names of 'strong believers' and those who stood with Micheal Schiavo get to go on with their business.

Joe(are we right and stupid?)Nation
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Apr, 2005 08:10 am
If the religious right is so serious about eternal life being the reward after this life, where was the problem with allowing Terri go to her reward. Isn't that what it is all about?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Apr, 2005 08:15 am
the "culture of life" has very specific (although variable) criteria when it comes to who gets saved and who gets wasted.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Apr, 2005 08:28 am
Quote:
If the religious right is so serious about eternal life being the reward after this life, where was the problem with allowing Terri go to her reward. Isn't that what it is all about?

Well, you have to remember the bizarroworld rules: whatever we say, we mean the opposite. So when they preach about the submission of the Spirit to God's Will, they mean holding on to whatever iota of life is laying about hereabouts. Until that is, that life needs some protection like being able to pursue a lawsuit against a corporate entity (they are a form of life form.) or decent medical facilities in their town, then it is none of their business.

Life is so important that it is necessary to have the death penalty, so those we don't execute will cherish their own life more. See? Now, Smile.

Joe(they give me a headache)Nation
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Apr, 2005 08:42 am
ummm ok Confused
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Apr, 2005 09:15 am
It's a slippery slope when we rope the dope.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Apr, 2005 12:11 pm
The right to lifers expended all that energy on one individual that had no potential for a normal "life," while we have thousands in our convalescent hospitals that are in need better care. If each life is so precious, why aren't they fighting for them?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Apr, 2005 01:27 pm
Joe,
I want the courts to apply the law EXACTLY the way the constitution was written.
I dont want them using their values,life experiences,foreign law,unratitifed treaties,public opinion,or anything else.

I want them to look at EXACTLY what the constitution says,nothing more.

Is that simple enough for you to understand?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Apr, 2005 01:38 pm
The Constitution was designed to evolve, not remain static for all time.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Apr, 2005 01:43 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
The right to lifers expended all that energy on one individual that had no potential for a normal "life," while we have thousands in our convalescent hospitals that are in need better care. If each life is so precious, why aren't they fighting for them?

This ain't rocket science. TS was being deliberately killed as more trouble than she was worth, which is really the essence of what we object to, and is somewhat different from just poor facilities (although, of course, any decent person wants sick people to have good care). And it was happening in the headlines, so, naturally we discuss it. We simply have a gut reaction that this is immoral, and you see vast right wing conspiracies. Like it or not, most of us just think it's immoral, and have no agenda beyond that. Yes, I'm sure that there are people who exploit anything for selfish reasons, but most of us just have a problem with the ethics of euthanizing people for convenience, particularly when they only require food and water to live. Ascribing false motives to your opponents, for which you have no evidence, and which are hard to disprove, is a very easy way of gaining debating points without countering someone's statements.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Apr, 2005 01:48 pm
Quote:
In theory, aren't we all accountable for our behavior on judgment day?


No. Not all of us think like you do, Debra_Law. Not all of us are religious. Many of us take a much more pragmatic view of life and death, accounting for a more humanistic approach towards these issues.

Scott Peterson murdered his pregnant wife in cold blood. Comparing that to Terri's situation is, well, like watching scum like Tom DeLay spin this all to his political advantage, which is really quite dispicable. No wonder his poll numbers have dropped. The majority of Americans are seeing this for what it is; Republican neocons pandering to their (perhaps) now shrinking religious base. Your arguments are futile because they are in the context of this shameless political maneuver, using the suffering of BOTH the Shindlers and Michael Shiavo for pure political gain.

Why is it you cannot answer a simple question, Debra_Law? Or perhaps you already did. You obviously seem to feel that Terri was murdered.

Then what is the point of a living will? Perhaps you can enlighten us.

And do you believe Bush embraces the sanctity of human life after being the Governor with the most executions of any state, and after invading Iraq and bombing the living **** out of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens? Do you believe Senator Majority leader Bill Frist embraces the sanctity of human life after the many times he's had to terminate a patient's life? Honestly, why do you insist on making a mockery out of Terri Shaivo's suffering? It truly boggles the mind. Perhaps neocons feel that as long as only the heart is beating, that that is justification for keeping a body going, even though the brain is completely gone. And you consider that life?

See, this is why you neocons are so conflicted. You never practice what you supposedly preach.

Tom DeLay is going down. In his usual disgusting style, he's suggesting doing away with a judicial system that was designed by our founding fathers to protect the American people from Governmental federal abuse. Apparently, you agree. And then you quote from Faux News to enforce your arguments.

Which is really quite sad...
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Apr, 2005 01:48 pm
Quote:
Ascribing false motives to your opponents, for which you have no evidence, and which are hard to disprove, is a very easy way of gaining debating points without countering someone's statements.


But aren't you doing exactly that when you write

Quote:
TS was being deliberately killed as more trouble than she was worth
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 11/16/2024 at 03:37:41