Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

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?

I'm still surprised to see not many have castigated DeLay for his comments about out legal system in this country.

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?

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.

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.

No. Please explain, if you dare, which I doubt.

I support anyones right to die,IF THATS WHAT THEY WANT.
But, we will never know if she truly wanted that, we had to take her "husbands" word for it.

But either way, it was the way she was allowed to die that many fought against.

I would go to jail if I starved my dog to death,doesnt a human deserve better?

If starvation is such a good way to die,will the left allow us to starve condemned killers to death?

That is what many people had a problem with.

If she really wanted to die,and if her "husband" had really wanted what was best for her,he could have authorized other,less lingering,ways for her to die.

mm, You will not be sentenced to jail if your dog no longer was able to eat by himself/herself. Where in heaven's name are you getting your information? Humans are not required to feed our animals through tubes to keep them alive at the risk of going to jail.

I can verify that my dog has no cognition. Just as they said about Terri. Yet, if I starve him, I would go to jail.

THats just one state.
ALL states have laws like this on the books.
So,since it is illegal to starve your dog to death,why do we allow a person,even Terri Schiavo,to die like that?