Please pray for Terri Schiavo

ragtopW · Post by **ragtopW** » March 5, 2005 3:23 pm

all the taste testing I'm doing on Jello shots this weekend
I'm gonna be in Pina Colada berg

Lightning Bolt · Post by **Lightning Bolt** » March 5, 2005 4:57 pm

ragtopW wrote:all the taste testing I'm doing on Jello shots this weekend
I'm gonna be in Pina Colada berg

Wow, Wayne!
You drop that Piña Coladaburg reference and I just happened to "see" Club Dread for the first time last night at, like, 1 a.m.
I just stumbled across it while trying to pass out, and it was just so incredible...

so incredibly BAD

OMG so very, very BAD..... Bill Paxton.... BAD

BTW, this thread was interesting and relevant a dozen or more pages ago

Now it looks like a flame-fest...time to move on

RinglingRingling · Post by **RinglingRingling** » March 5, 2005 4:58 pm

Lightning Bolt wrote:
ragtopW wrote:all the taste testing I'm doing on Jello shots this weekend
I'm gonna be in Pina Colada berg
Wow, Wayne!
You drop that Piña Coladaburg reference and I just happened to "see" Club Dread for the first time last night at, like, 1 a.m.
I just stumbled across it while trying to pass out, and it was just so incredible...

so incredibly BAD OMG so very, very BAD..... Bill Paxton.... BAD

BTW, this thread was interesting and relevant a dozen or more pages ago
Now it looks like a flame-fest...time to move on

no, actually, it is possible to hijack it again..

Just recall Sea Chanties, and Wet Panties..

Lightning Bolt · Post by **Lightning Bolt** » March 5, 2005 5:08 pm

RinglingRingling wrote:
Lightning Bolt wrote:
ragtopW wrote:all the taste testing I'm doing on Jello shots this weekend
I'm gonna be in Pina Colada berg
Wow, Wayne!
You drop that Piña Coladaburg reference and I just happened to "see" Club Dread for the first time last night at, like, 1 a.m.
I just stumbled across it while trying to pass out, and it was just so incredible...

so incredibly BAD OMG so very, very BAD..... Bill Paxton.... BAD

BTW, this thread was interesting and relevant a dozen or more pages ago
Now it looks like a flame-fest...time to move on
no, actually, it is possible to hijack it again..

Just recall Sea Chanties, and Wet Panties..

Actually, the songs were pretty hi-larious

and the blonde was cute

RinglingRingling · Post by **RinglingRingling** » March 5, 2005 5:08 pm

Lightning Bolt wrote:
RinglingRingling wrote:
Lightning Bolt wrote:
ragtopW wrote:all the taste testing I'm doing on Jello shots this weekend
I'm gonna be in Pina Colada berg
Wow, Wayne!
You drop that Piña Coladaburg reference and I just happened to "see" Club Dread for the first time last night at, like, 1 a.m.
I just stumbled across it while trying to pass out, and it was just so incredible...

so incredibly BAD OMG so very, very BAD..... Bill Paxton.... BAD

BTW, this thread was interesting and relevant a dozen or more pages ago
Now it looks like a flame-fest...time to move on
no, actually, it is possible to hijack it again..

Just recall Sea Chanties, and Wet Panties..
Actually, the songs were pretty hi-larious
and the blonde was cute

she was, and they kept giving her new outfits to show off her "endowments"

Lightning Bolt · Post by **Lightning Bolt** » March 5, 2005 5:14 pm

RinglingRingling wrote:
Lightning Bolt wrote:
RinglingRingling wrote:
Lightning Bolt wrote:
ragtopW wrote:all the taste testing I'm doing on Jello shots this weekend
I'm gonna be in Pina Colada berg
Wow, Wayne!
You drop that Piña Coladaburg reference and I just happened to "see" Club Dread for the first time last night at, like, 1 a.m.
I just stumbled across it while trying to pass out, and it was just so incredible...

so incredibly BAD OMG so very, very BAD..... Bill Paxton.... BAD

BTW, this thread was interesting and relevant a dozen or more pages ago
Now it looks like a flame-fest...time to move on
no, actually, it is possible to hijack it again..

Just recall Sea Chanties, and Wet Panties..
Actually, the songs were pretty hi-larious
and the blonde was cute
she was, and they kept giving her new outfits to show off her "endowments"

Now that I think more about the film, it definitely DID NOT s***!!

Key Lime Lee · Post by **Key Lime Lee** » March 5, 2005 9:31 pm

It's perfectly acceptable for someone to argue that, according to their beliefs, this amounts to murder and all taking of life is wrong. But then Sam would also have to be anti-abortion and anti-capitol punishment to avoid being a hypocrite. He may be all of those things... we just don't know.

Regardless, there are a couple of significant logical flaws in Sam's defense of his position. Namely:

1. Since Sam's argument seems to revolve around the judgement that removing life support is murder, I'd be curious to know what difference it makes what Terri's own decision would have been. Even if she had a living will, the removal of life support would still end her life and, as a result, still fall under the "murder" definition.

Unless, of course, if murder is okay if its the will of the individual being murdered.

If Sam isn't in favor of assisted suicide, then Terri's wishes on the subject are moot.

2. Equally as moot is the refrain still being sung... that once we allow people to be removed from life support, there's no telling who is next. As much as Sam tries to ignore it, it IS legal to take someone off of life support. The courts aren't answering the question of whether its legal to do it, they're simply trying to settle who has the authority to make that decision, the parents or the husband.

It's time he acknowledges that since it's already legal to do it and no one is killing at random, then his doomsday scenario is simply fear-mongering.

3. Sam has already acknowled in his response for FourPlay that determining how long to keep someone on life support is a judgement call for the doctors and the family. It's curious then that he would interject his own supposition into what essentially should be a family matter. One can only wonder how understanding he would be about total strangers questioning his motives when dealing with those incredibly difficult decisions. It seems that if he acknowledges its a judgement call best made by those involved, he should leave it to those involved and not presume to know better the motivations of those involved.

In the end, the best defense for his position would simply be to state that, according to his belief system, he interprets removing a feeding tube from someone who is still breathing as murder, regardless of their level of activity or consiousness.

There is no way to disprove Sam's point of view in that scenario, but there's also no way for Sam to feel that he's right in an absolute sense, since anyone with a different belief system and/or a different interpretation of the situation would be equally justified in their perspective.

Sam · Post by **Sam** » March 5, 2005 9:52 pm

RinglingRingling wrote:
Sam wrote: I see that you understood nothing of what I said .........or meant.......Talking with my pets and plants seems to be of more use

If she is alive, and aparently she is........yes removing her feeding tube accounts to murder.....If the tube had never been in place to start off with then were the doctors doing their job leads to more questions. such as what treatments should be given ...... Tell me if you would consider starving anyone or anything to death under any other circumstances to be accepatble...?

You admit that the husband waited 8 years to bring this up and deny her therapy..... tell me why you do not find any questions in his motivation.

No it is not about my family or your family...but it just as easily could well be.

Tell me how you know so much about Terri... have you personally evaluated her?

Tell me how YOU KNOW what her wishes are? Did she tell you? Do you not find any problem with the fact that the husband waited 8 years to recall a supposedly one time conversation?

Does he really want her wishes carried out or the insurance money?

He can and could have easily left or divorced her at any time...and walk away. Yet he wants her dead for some reason....He has left her family out in the cold.He has denied her rehap therapy. He has fought testing on her to evaluate her, off and on....you can decide to kill all you like

Taking her life is permanent........and can never be changed once it is taken.

Are you so eager for anyone to die that you will believe a person waited 8 years to recall a onetime conversation ?

If you want to decide to cause death by starvation as a pleasant and reasonable way of killing someone...that does not happen to meet your definition of life so be it...where do YOU draw the line? WHO will you kill next? I am not disagreeing with the right to die with dignity. I am questioning the motives behind this. What is so hard for you and others to understand about that?

ejr is quite right in his post and knows that while our opinions differ ...we continue to respect one another....tell me why you and a few others are seemingly incapable of maintaining such decorum and moderate and understanding of such a grevious and tragic sad situation.

To whoever it was that posted something about not taking it. I can dish it out and I can take it too.
* That is going to win friends and influence people

Get over the "doing it for the insurance money" argument. That is more than likely gone. Ever price long-term intensive care? $300k is not a lot in a situation like that.

Maybe he ran out of hope? Could be that he suppressed the wish in his own hope/delusion; just that he ran out before her parents did.

Too: since death by starvation is the option here; because people of your belief stripe are so diametrically opposed to euthanasia, that is the way it has to be. She's dead. Body may not fully know it yet; mind is certainly not aware of anything according to the impartial doctor. The only really-humane thing to do is spike the IV line.

and lastly, no you can't. You can't take a logical argument. You just stick your fingers in your ears and go, "lalalalalala, I'm not listening to you, and when your lips are done moving, I am going to call you a liar."

I don't care about influencing people or the clique thqt exist here.

I did not tell anyone how to think!

I did not tell anyone their views were wrong!

As to how I feel euthanasia, well you proved what and how ignorant you really are. You know nothing of my or my family's decisisions or the decisions I have had to make...or how difficult they were. I thank you for your insults and I can only hope and pray you never have to make any of them.

Let me know when you decide to be euthanized by starvation.....I will not question your motives or your objectives and will gladly know that you died a slow painfull death by such means and that you think that it is ok to starve someone to death....and you made the decision to die but such means. Your choice to decide......Again I hope and pray it never comes to that for you or your family, but note that if it ever does I will do my best to ensure your wishes are carired out to the utmost as best that I can.

I do not always go with the flow, nor am I plastic in my views. There are those that understand my views and do not accuse me of anything. Then there are those like you that seem to have a failure in basic understanding. But know that if you make your wishes clear, I have no problem with them...I do have a problem with someone that waits 8 years and to recall a one time, once only conversation.

I have made my point/view quite clear several times. You seemingly want an argument, simply because someone has a different view than you, You have made yourself quite clear on that point.

I don't care to argue it with anyone. One need look at my posts and responses to ejr or Four Play for example. Neither of them resorted to being idiotic or asinine nor insulting.

I see no reason to insult you or criticize you beyond what has been already said. You are welcome to decide for yourself.

I am not here to win friends and influence enemies....but it certainly seems as if some of the people that are posting here are out to make new enemies.......

I post my views as I see them and as I choose to post. Perhaps my views are not popular, but my views are my own and not part of any "clique" and I will stand by my views......I do respect other's views and thier RIGHT to them, no matter what you may think.....I reserve the RIGHT to think what I will of those views. Clearly you and a few others that have posted their views in here apparently do not.

Key Lime Lee · Post by **Key Lime Lee** » March 5, 2005 10:07 pm

Sam wrote:As to how I feel euthanasia, well you proved what and how ignorant you really are.

I'd say Ringling's conclusion seems fair considering your repeated insistance that to remove the feeding tube is murder. Nowhere here have you written anything to suggest that there are scenarios where you consider this kind of murder to be morally acceptable.

Mr Play · Post by **Mr Play** » March 5, 2005 10:08 pm

Key Lime Lee wrote:There is no way to disprove Sam's point of view in that scenario, but there's also no way for Sam to feel that he's right in an absolute sense, since anyone with a different belief system and/or a different interpretation of the situation would be equally justified in their perspective.

Sam wrote:I do respect other's views and thier RIGHT to them.....I reserve the RIGHT to think what I will of those views.

Well said on both accounts. I hope everyone will take these statements to heart and stop the personal attacks and insults.

Sam · Post by **Sam** » March 5, 2005 11:29 pm

Key Lime Lee wrote:It's perfectly acceptable for someone to argue that, according to their beliefs, this amounts to murder and all taking of life is wrong. But then Sam would also have to be anti-abortion and anti-capitol punishment to avoid being a hypocrite. He may be all of those things... we just don't know.

Regardless, there are a couple of significant logical flaws in Sam's defense of his position. Namely:

1. Since Sam's argument seems to revolve around the judgement that removing life support is murder, I'd be curious to know what difference it makes what Terri's own decision would have been. Even if she had a living will, the removal of life support would still end her life and, as a result, still fall under the "murder" definition.

Unless, of course, if murder is okay if its the will of the individual being murdered.

If Sam isn't in favor of assisted suicide, then Terri's wishes on the subject are moot.

2. Equally as moot is the refrain still being sung... that once we allow people to be removed from life support, there's no telling who is next. As much as Sam tries to ignore it, it IS legal to take someone off of life support. The courts aren't answering the question of whether its legal to do it, they're simply trying to settle who has the authority to make that decision, the parents or the husband.

It's time he acknowledges that since it's already legal to do it and no one is killing at random, then his doomsday scenario is simply fear-mongering.

3. Sam has already acknowled in his response for FourPlay that determining how long to keep someone on life support is a judgement call for the doctors and the family. It's curious then that he would interject his own supposition into what essentially should be a family matter. One can only wonder how understanding he would be about total strangers questioning his motives when dealing with those incredibly difficult decisions. It seems that if he acknowledges its a judgement call best made by those involved, he should leave it to those involved and not presume to know better the motivations of those involved.

In the end, the best defense for his position would simply be to state that, according to his belief system, he interprets removing a feeding tube from someone who is still breathing as murder, regardless of their level of activity or consiousness.

There is no way to disprove Sam's point of view in that scenario, but there's also no way for Sam to feel that he's right in an absolute sense, since anyone with a different belief system and/or a different interpretation of the situation would be equally justified in their perspective.

ONE: Abortion and Capital Pinishment are for other topics.

TWO: My whole point has been DID SHE ACTUALY MAKE THAT STATEMENT TO HIM. He waited 8 YEARS after denying her rehab and recalled only one conversation.

THREE: Other than what views have been posted in here I do not know of anyone that would consider death by starvation to be euthanasia.

FOUR:No nmatter how many times someone accuses me does not make it so. Nor does it make it so IF they accuse you of something with no apparent proof other than someone's say so.

FIVE: I do not not know if what her Husband said is correct or not. I would think no one "apparently" here does. I question the motives behind
her husband. That is all! I never said I was against or for anything.

SIX: Why didn't he bring up the statement 15 years ago? Why did he wait 8 years if she is suffering as some have surmised? Why did he deny her rehabilitive therapy?

Again I question his motives...

SEVEN: I did not attack anyone because of their view or belief or their opinion. I did respond to what I percieved and saw as a personnal attack upon me.
Some I ignored and some I did not, as I do not have the time to reply to everyone and I nor my family are the topic or issue here.

EIGHT: No matter your opinion nor my opinion....I don't think starving someone to death is a good thing. Add all the qualifiers you want. If it such a good and pleasant way to die and is not considered to be inhumane treatment...how many people are executed in such manner based upon an alledged ONE TIME conversation that alledgedly took place more than 15 years ago and he never mentioned until 8 years after the person was comatoseand could not speak for themself?

NINE: We ( meaning all and any of us) have the RIGHT to have different opinions. I never said mine nor anyone else was correct or the only opinion to have.

TEN:BestWurst is not me by any means.No matter what silly game some of you want to play. I have no idea who BestWurst is. No matter how much some of you want your ego stroked. I don't play those games.

ELEVEN: I hope and pray that none of you ever have to go through what I have nor what Terri's husband or her parents have had to endure. Knoe that if you do....You have my support and empathy.

TWELVE: All of us are only expressing our opinion on Terri and her situation. I would like to know how many here that have condemned her to death know her true wishes rather than expressing their opinion as to what they think her views might have been.

How many would accept a one time conversation made about them 8 years or so before hand as testimony that was never brought up before?

I will grant that she may have made such a statement...how many will grant that it is possible that she did not and question the husband's motives.......once she is dead it will be too late to help her if she is capable of being helped...help that her husband denied her 15 years ago.
Just think about that...The Right nor the Left nor abortion nor capital punishment have anything to do with this topic....just think it over and all the way through. Not asking anyone to change their view or mind...just to think it over is all that I ask and see if they see any question or room or shadow of doubt or cause to question the motives....

Thank you,

Sam

Key Lime Lee · Post by **Key Lime Lee** » March 5, 2005 11:50 pm

Sam wrote: THREE: Other than what views have been posted in here I do not know of anyone that would consider death by starvation to be euthanasia.

Pope John Paul II wrote: Death by starvation or dehydration is, in fact, the only possible outcome as a result of their withdrawal. In this sense it ends up becoming, if done knowingly and willingly, true and proper euthanasia by omission.

http://www.wf-f.org/JPIILifeSustaining0304.html

ragtopW · Post by **ragtopW** » March 5, 2005 11:54 pm

Hey everyone

turn to the right and say

hi Jack!!!!!!

Sam · Post by **Sam** » March 5, 2005 11:55 pm

Key Lime Lee wrote:
Sam wrote:As to how I feel euthanasia, well you proved what and how ignorant you really are.
I'd say Ringling's conclusion seems fair considering your repeated insistance that to remove the feeding tube is murder. Nowhere here have you written anything to suggest that there are scenarios where you consider this kind of murder to be morally acceptable.

I would consider it common sense that intentionally starving someone to death to be intentional murder. You and everyone else are welcome to think otherwise....I don't tell or ask people to think or believe as I do. I only ask to them think.......

FFishstick · Post by **FFishstick** » March 6, 2005 12:00 am

Judge not, lest ye be judged, says the Lord.

Sam · Post by **Sam** » March 6, 2005 12:03 am

Key Lime Lee wrote:
Sam wrote: THREE: Other than what views have been posted in here I do not know of anyone that would consider death by starvation to be euthanasia.

Pope John Paul II wrote: Death by starvation or dehydration is, in fact, the only possible outcome as a result of their withdrawal. In this sense it ends up becoming, if done knowingly and willingly, true and proper euthanasia by omission.

http://www.wf-f.org/JPIILifeSustaining0304.html

I am not the Pope nor am I Catholic. My views and opinions are my own as I stated earlier....

Your point being? Are you saying I must find the Pope's view acceptable? The Pope says birthcontrol is wrong, do I and women in general need to believe that it is wrong?

Who are you or I , to decide what is Right or wrong for Terri or her family. Again you dodged my questions...let me know when you decide to answer them.

BTW did you bother to read that page in depth or only quote an excerpt from it..........the page in it's entirety shoots you in the foot and groin....

Key Lime Lee · Post by **Key Lime Lee** » March 6, 2005 12:06 am

Sam wrote:I would consider it common sense that intentionally starving someone to death to be intentional murder. You and everyone else are welcome to think otherwise....I don't tell or ask people to think or believe as I do. I only ask to them think.......

If one adopts the stance that all acts that deliberately end a life are murder, then the issue is really "Is murder always morally wrong?"

Am I morally wrong to murder my dog if its in excruciating pain and has no chance for recovery? What about my brother? Are there ever instances when murder is morally acceptable. say, if it limits suffering of terminally ill patients?

Sam · Post by **Sam** » March 6, 2005 12:17 am

Key Lime Lee wrote:
Sam wrote:I would consider it common sense that intentionally starving someone to death to be intentional murder. You and everyone else are welcome to think otherwise....I don't tell or ask people to think or believe as I do. I only ask to them think.......
If one adopts the stance that all acts that deliberately end a life are murder, then the issue is really "Is murder always morally wrong?"

Am I morally wrong to murder my dog if its in excruciating pain and has no chance for recovery? What about my brother? Are there ever instances when murder is morally acceptable. say, if it limits suffering of terminally ill patients?

I cannot follow your point at all. One must kill to eat no matter if plant of animal.

If you consider killing an animal to be murder then you might have some validity to your point and everyone murders in order to eat and to survive. as everyone must eat.

No matter how much I love animals or my pets....I do not consider killing an animal to be murder....perhaps a crimminal act at times, but that is again irrelevant

As far as I know murder is only committed against humans. Let me know when you have a different case.

As far as mentioning family members are you wanting info on mine? Perhaps if you had been with me when decisions were made you might be more understanding and not as hostile as you were earlier.

I can assure you that I have been there more than once...both with family and with pets.

None of the cases/incidents had to wait 8 years, to make a decision based upon an alledged one time conversation!

Perhaps you might find a one time conversation more than 8 years ago to be accepable proof...only you know about that....

Key Lime Lee · Post by **Key Lime Lee** » March 6, 2005 12:20 am

Sam wrote:
BTW did you bother to read that page in depth or only quote an excerpt from it..........the page in it's entirety shoots you in the foot and groin....

Really?

It doesn't undermine any argument I've made here and if you think it does than you're the one not paying close attention.

The point, dear Sam, is that you stated "Other than what views have been posted in here I do not know of anyone that would consider death by starvation to be euthanasia. "

Lots of people consider it euthanasia, whether they're morally opposed to euthanasia or not. The quotation from the Pope demonstrates that.

As an expression of the immorality of euthanasia PJP2's argument is relatively weak, considering its foundation is the erroneous concept of a "moral imperative" and the equally un-proveable "laws of God".

Key Lime Lee · Post by **Key Lime Lee** » March 6, 2005 12:25 am

Sam wrote:I cannot follow your point at all.

Do you consider all acts that deliberately end a human life to be murder or just certain ones?