Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

Brandon9000 wrote:

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.

False motives? It would seem as thought Tom DeLay's "false motives" are causing his polls numbers to drop. It would seem that many others in Congress who had "false motives" and who voted for the Terri bill are keeping pretty much silent now regarding all of this. Thank god the Pope died when he did in order to distract the American people from the Terri Shiavo three-ring circus, brought to you by your friendly neighborhood power hungry neocons.

You realize that you are squarely in the minority on this issue, as roughly 2/3rds of the country agree with finally ending Terri's misery. She died a long time ago, but doctors kept her BODY alive so that eventually scum sucking leaches like Tom DeLay, Bush, Dr. Frist, and others could use her, her suffering families and her husband to their political advantage.

Even Cheney is now saying that DeLay went too far. Go figure...

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

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

First of all, whether I am guilty of the same offense or not, you people are certainly guilty of it, because I can assure you that most of us are not advocating these ideas about TS for any ulterior motive.

Now, am I herein guilty of it too? TS was certainly being deliberately killed. This is not ascribing a motive at all, just my description of the event. As for the reason she was being killed, yes, I am assigning a motive. In the case of abortion, I think that this description of motive is inarguable. The motive is convenience coupled with no respect for the fetus. In the case of TS, there were probably some people involved who had altruistic motives and sincerely believed it was best for her, but I suppose, ultimately, I am guessing motive.

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

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

Hee, hee. Exactly goodfield. Amazing the hypocrisy that these neocons demonstrate.

And it's really quite sad...

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
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.

False motives? It would seem as thought Tom DeLay's "false motives" are causing his polls numbers to drop. It would seem that many others in Congress who had "false motives" and who voted for the Terri bill are keeping pretty much silent now regarding all of this. Thank god the Pope died when he did in order to distract the American people from the Terri Shiavo three-ring circus, brought to you by your friendly neighborhood power hungry neocons.

You offer not a shred of evidence for the rather fantastical motives you ascribe to us. Easier than arguing with our stated positions.

Dookiestix wrote:

You realize that you are squarely in the minority on this issue, as roughly 2/3rds of the country agree with finally ending Terri's misery.

I don't get my ethics from polls. Why, do you?

Dookiestix wrote:

She died a long time ago, but doctors kept her BODY alive so that eventually scum sucking leaches like Tom DeLay, Bush, Dr. Frist, and others could use her, her suffering families and her husband to their political advantage.

Even Cheney is now saying that DeLay went too far. Go figure...

Once again, you are psychicly guessing base motives for everyone on my side of the issue.

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

goodfielder wrote:
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

Hee, hee. Exactly goodfield. Amazing the hypocrisy that these neocons demonstrate.

And it's really quite sad...

Even If I am guilty of guessing motives, that doesn't make you any less guitly of it.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

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?

Thank you for making it simple and simplistic at the same time. An examination of the history of the right to vote in these United States would be an interesting starting place for examination of your theory. For example, the Constitution, Article I, Section 2, clause 1 states :"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." Now what's simple about that? Everything? Nothing?

Seems simple enough until you realize that we couldn't decide who "the People of the several States" were for one hundred and thirty three years. Certainly not, said the States' Legislatures, women, certainly not anyone who couldn't pay a poll tax, certainly not anyone deemed by the State's powers to be ineligible by reason of race, and briefly in Utah, of religion.

So who's task is it to decide, to interpret, to define such a simple term as the People of the several States? It doesn't say 'citizen' it says 'people', does that mean my friend Albert from England who lives in Florida every winter and who absolutely appears to be a person ought to be able to vote? He is one of the People of the several States after all.

Well first, the Legislatures of the various states must write a law, no doubt about that, but, then the Courts of those same States and those Courts ordained and established by the US Congress are compelled by Article III Section 2 Clause 1 to exercise their judical power over all cases arising from the Constitution get to decide if they followed the Constitution. They are the judges after all and lucky thing for us 'People of the several States' who happen to be in the minority on some issue or when there is a question of what one's individual rights are under the Constitution.

I doubt if they let Albert vote, though such an issue is presently moving through the courts regarding Non-Citizen Resident Aliens, and, if we use your theory, they must allow him to vote. Could that be what you have in mind by exactly what it says?? I don't think so. The beauty and the strength of the United States Constitution lies not in holding rigidly to the exactitude of it's wording but in the careful consideration of their meaning in our world of today.

Joe(Next we talk about the right of privacy.)Nation

0 Replies

Inconvenient-- troublesome, awkward, causing or lending itself to discomfort, or difficulty....

I think the desire to have an abortion must begin with inconvenience.

0 Replies

I think the desire to deny a woman's right to choose must begin with religious zealotry...

0 Replies

Considering I'm not too crazy about abortion on demand, and comparing me to a religious zealot is laughable, I'd have to say you're wrong.

0 Replies

Brandon, it's those neocon idiots in power who have so manipulated the masses regarding this Terri Shiavo fiasco. It is THEY'RE ethics which do not jibe with the majority of the American people, because it is THEIR ethics which moved them to politicize this whole mess. This has nothing to do with polls. It has everything to do with what is right. Buy a clue.

One doesn't need a psychic to understand the dispicable motives behind all of this. The fact that we're even discussing this one case ad nauseum, vs. myriad other cases in the past, some of which Dr. Frist personally resided over, is all the proof one needs. What planet do you hail from to offer such a disjointed viewpoint? Polls? What polls? The will of the American people seems to be the most important element here, as you neocons will argue for adamently when it mearly serves your purpose.

Quote:

Even If I am guilty of guessing motives (which you are, Brandon), that doesn't make you any less guitly of it.

Duh. That was what Goodfielder was pointing out. Do you realize the ridiculous circles your arguments have inspired?

Lash wrote:

Considering I'm not too crazy about abortion on demand, and comparing me to a religious zealot is laughable, I'd have to say you're wrong.

Neither am I crazy about abortion on demand. But I'm also not that crazy either regarding NOT educating those who need to know, and we all know that the neoconservatives would rather do away entirely with sex education and birth control, which is fueled ideologically by religious zealots. Are you for or against sex education and birth control, Lash?

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

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.

I disagree. The only reason this is an issue is because there was a difference of opinion among Terri's loved ones as to what was best for Terri. How many times a day is someone taken off life support or have a feeding tube removed and we hear *nothing* about it because there is no disagreement within the family? I don't know the answer to that question, but the only reason we are having this discussion is because her loved ones couldn't come to an agreement regarding her care. This is, was, and should only ever have been an issue between Michael and the Shindlers. It has nothing to do with someone being deliberately killed because she was more trouble than she was worth. It is only about what was best for this individual and the disagreement between her husband and her families. My opinion is that it's none of our business.

0 Replies

J_B, Well stated; it was none of our business. Thousands die similarly in this country almost every day.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

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.

Now did anyone here mention a "vast right-wing conspiracy?' No liberal on this board said a word about a "vast tight-wing conspiracy." You see how they put words in our mouths and then ridicule us as if we had said it ourselves? When we actually didn't say that at all.

I also notice that those against choice, those who identify themselves as advocating a right to life all seem to have a heavy bag full of nasty super-ego stuff hanging around their necks, rotting their brains. The emphasis seems to be on selfishness. The right to lifers have a hard time understanding why anyone would want to enjoy their lives or provide a quality of life to those who are living. They can't imagine any reason why a person would need an abortion other than "convenience." Actually there are many reasons, both complicated and simple why a person would need an abortion other than for mere convenience. All one really needs to do is look around and observe reality, or better yet, think for a change.

I get so tired of these moralistic know-it-alls wagging their fingers in our faces telling us how we should have to live our lives. Now they're not even content just to hound us until their eyes bug out of their faces. Now they want it written into the constitution. They want judges who are also super-ego addicts legislating from the bench. Now they want to force us to live as they think we should.

And they all seem to have a one track mind. They don't seem to join into a discussion at all. They don't even seem to read what is posted. They just keep right on with their moralistic crap over and over again. It seems as if they'd eventually get tired of all this simplistic moralizing and yearn for a life with more going on than sin and punishment. You'd think......but for some, it will never happen.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Dookiestix wrote:
goodfielder wrote:
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

Hee, hee. Exactly goodfield. Amazing the hypocrisy that these neocons demonstrate.

And it's really quite sad...

Even If I am guilty of guessing motives, that doesn't make you any less guitly of it.

guilt guilt guilt, sin sin sin.........wag wag wag the finger.

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

Brandon, it's those neocon idiots in power who have so manipulated the masses regarding this Terri Shiavo fiasco. It is THEY'RE ethics which do not jibe with the majority of the American people, because it is THEIR ethics which moved them to politicize this whole mess. This has nothing to do with polls. It has everything to do with what is right. Buy a clue.

One doesn't need a psychic to understand the dispicable motives behind all of this. The fact that we're even discussing this one case ad nauseum, vs. myriad other cases in the past, some of which Dr. Frist personally resided over, is all the proof one needs. What planet do you hail from to offer such a disjointed viewpoint? Polls? What polls? The will of the American people seems to be the most important element here, as you neocons will argue for adamently when it mearly serves your purpose.

Quote:
Even If I am guilty of guessing motives (which you are, Brandon), that doesn't make you any less guitly of it.

Duh. That was what Goodfielder was pointing out. Do you realize the ridiculous circles your arguments have inspired?

Lash wrote:
Considering I'm not too crazy about abortion on demand, and comparing me to a religious zealot is laughable, I'd have to say you're wrong.

Neither am I crazy about abortion on demand. But I'm also not that crazy either regarding NOT educating those who need to know, and we all know that the neoconservatives would rather do away entirely with sex education and birth control, which is fueled ideologically by religious zealots. Are you for or against sex education and birth control, Lash?

I don't agree with you Dookie that it's the neo-cons. It's the New Right, the evangelical fundamentalist control freaks behind this. They've been at it a long time. Now they expect their reward. But it looks like they're going to go too far and the American people will finally see how and by whom they are being pushed around.

0 Replies

Right on, Lola.

0 Replies

It's emotionalism pushing this issue, far more than right and wrong. People see a smiling Terri and her eyes moving in a video clip and cannot believe she is brain dead. Fortunately, most people are able to put the issue in perspective and not go along with those who claim she was murdered.

0 Replies

Dookie--

I am aware there is a group of people who are out and out against Birth Control. I think they are a severe minority. I advocate birth control.

There is a larger group who are against sex education...and then some, who just want to have a say in when their children recieve sex education. Some of these people are unreasonable, some are reasonable. I am an advocate of sex education.

Why do you ask?

0 Replies

Lola
Lola, i really wish you were able to express yourself better.

BBB Evil or Very Mad

:wink:

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

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.

"Malice Aforethought" does not require ill-will toward the victim. It does not require wickedness. It requires 1) an intent to cause the death of the victim; or 2) an intent to cause serious bodily injury.

Accordingly, murder is intentionally or knowingly causing the death of another.

0 Replies

Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know