View Full Version : Bush Kills Baby.....Joins Culture of Death
Bush Criticized for End-of-Life Laws
By Jane Roh
NEW YORK — While Americans were riveted by dramatic events unfolding in Pinellas Park, Fla., a five-month-old Houston baby took his last breath after a hospital let him die despite his mother's objections.
Sun Hudson was born Sept. 25 with thanatophoric dysplasia , an incurable and fatal form of dwarfism. Doctors said his tiny lungs would never fully grow and that he would never breathe on his own.
Hudson's mother, Wanda, put up a fight when doctors advised removing Sun from a respirator. She said she did not believe in sickness or death.
But on March 15, a Texas law signed by then-Gov. George W. Bush in 1999 allowed the hospital to go ahead and take Sun off the respirator in defiance of Wanda Hudson's wishes.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151448,00.html
PaceAdvantage
03-28-2005, 12:49 PM
I applaud the powers that be for recognizing the differences between the Schiavo case, and others that may appear to be on the surface, SOMEWHAT similar, but in reality, are drastically different to even the most simple of thinkers.
Food & Water = Dialysis and Artificial Respiration.....hmmm...I'll have to remember that one...it's a doozy!
46zilzal
03-28-2005, 01:31 PM
no ONE person will ultimately KILL either of these pateints...BAD physiology will do them in, JUST LIKE IT WILL US someday.
Again, IF YOU ARE NOT invlolved, at the CARE GIVING level, the perspective you take is RADICALLY different.
GameTheory
03-28-2005, 01:53 PM
Starving to death is bad physiology? I guess all people that cannot survive without food have bad physiology?
46zilzal
03-28-2005, 03:00 PM
ULTIMATLEY is the key word here
I applaud the powers that be for recognizing the differences between the Schiavo case, and others that may appear to be on the surface, SOMEWHAT similar, but in reality, are drastically different to even the most simple of thinkers.
Food & Water = Dialysis and Artificial Respiration.....hmmm...I'll have to remember that one...it's a doozy!
The dynamics are different. The simplest of minds can see that. The realm is the same. Have you a comment on Government deciding when to end life support? Or not?
GameTheory
03-28-2005, 03:55 PM
ULTIMATLEY is the key word hereI still don't get it. How is starving to death the result of bad physiology?
starving to death ? Please. No wonder I have to use hyperbole to make a point around here.
That statement has the feel ...that I'm in a room, locked away from my refridgerator, and being denied the right to eat.
Terri Schiavo cannot eat. And when they call it a feeding tube, they are not stuffing peanut butter and Jelly sandwichs into a Tube. It is medical nutrients designed to sustain tissue and organ function.
Bobby
03-28-2005, 04:18 PM
starving to death ?
That statement has the feel ...that I'm in a room, locked away from my refridgerator, and being denied the right to eat.
Terri Schiavo cannot eat. And when they call it a feeding tube, they are not stuffing peanut butter and Jelly sandwichs into a Tube. It is medical nutrients designed to sustain tissue and organ function.
exactly
GameTheory
03-28-2005, 04:23 PM
starving to death ? Please. No wonder I have to use hyperbole to make a point around here.
That statement has the feel ...that I'm in a room, locked away from my refridgerator, and being denied the right to eat.
Terri Schiavo cannot eat. And when they call it a feeding tube, they are not stuffing peanut butter and Jelly sandwichs into a Tube. It is medical nutrients designed to sustain tissue and organ function.Without which she is starving to death, yes. Why are you afraid to say it? An infant is in much the same situation -- if you didn't feed a baby and it died, would you say, "Oh well, bad physiology." If you are going to kill the woman, at least look her in the eye when you do it and don't pretend it is something else. Don't worry -- "she's a vegetable" -- so she won't even be looking back at you...
Without which she is starving to death, yes. Why are you afraid to say it? An infant is in much the same situation -- if you didn't feed a baby and it died, would...
What would you do,,, If you had ultimate control here. Whats the move you'd make? Parental Gaurdian keep her on feeding tube indefinately?
GameTheory
03-28-2005, 05:22 PM
What would you do,,, If you had ultimate control here. Whats the move you'd make? Parental Gaurdian keep her on feeding tube indefinately?I don't know, and I'm not making a case here. But if I were to make the decision the process would start (I would hope) with an honest evaluation of what the options really were. You remove the tube, she STARVES TO DEATH. Period. I don't rationalize it to make it easier to accept. There are ugly truths to be faced either way -- so you face them.
PaceAdvantage
03-28-2005, 05:31 PM
GT, THANK YOU!
GT, THANK YOU!
Your funny today.. Thank you for what? You two haven't followed the case for 15 years...(either have I)and now its front and center and you want a "Do over"
Is that what I see you saying? That the facts and options have been properly reviewed?
GameTheory
03-28-2005, 06:12 PM
Your funny today.. Thank you for what? You two haven't followed the case for 15 years...(either have I)and now its front and center and you want a "Do over"
Is that what I see you saying? That the facts and options have been properly reviewed?Not at all -- I'm referring to how the situation is being depicted by you and 46 right in this thread, as if she's not "really" starving to death, when of course she is....
Not at all -- I'm referring to how the situation is being depicted by you and 46 right in this thread, as if she's not "really" starving to death, when of course she is....
yes..she is being starved to death. And when you use nomenclature like that it pulls at the heart..and the "sense" that things should be different. But in the end, when intellect must conquer emotion... its simply a tragedy. And it does provide me some comfort to couch it in medical terminology rather than practical terminology. Its why people say " he passed away" rather than "he died".... Words can draw a more emotional reaction than needed when coming to terms with reality.
What would you do,,, If you had ultimate control here. Whats the move you'd make? Parental Gaurdian keep her on feeding tube indefinately?
I would allow the baby to be removed from artificial respiration, if I were the father. I do not accept that state of Texas has that right. I consider that murder as well.
Under no conditions, as the baby's hypothetical father, would I agree to remve a feeding tube if there were one.
The governement can NEVER have this authority...NEVER.
Equineer
03-28-2005, 06:54 PM
Many compassionate folks have let starvation accelerate the death cycle for family members with Alzheimer's disease.
In the final crazed stages when they are incapable of cognitive self-preservation, a common step in accordance with the patient's legal pre-authorization is to approve withholding all forms of artificial life support measures.
This includes intravenous nutrients, and malnutrition immediately starts weakening their immune systems because they won't feed themselves and resist attempts by care attendants to feed them.
However, as 46ZilZal noted, before they starve to death, they usually die of another complication such as pneumonia or another fatal condition... ultimately dying bedridden on account of suffocation, heart failures, etc.
When it's all said and done, I don't think most people want to cheat death when life becomes meaningless.
I have a question for those here who keep whining about the "starving to death" of Terri Schiavo.
Is that more cruel then suffocating this poor helpless baby?
CryingForTheHorses
03-29-2005, 08:28 PM
I would allow the baby to be removed from artificial respiration, if I were the father. I do not accept that state of Texas has that right. I consider that murder as well.
Under no conditions, as the baby's hypothetical father, would I agree to remve a feeding tube if there were one.
The governement can NEVER have this authority...NEVER.
If the goverment will let this lady starve to death..They may as well euthanize her. Wouldnt that be more humane?Im not for either but at least it would stop her suffering now.
Tom, I agree.
These people are hiding behind starvation because they are cowards - they have not the guts to turn up the morphine drip, they don't even have the guts to not offer morphine.
Truly gutless people that do not have the courage of thier convictions.
boxcar
03-30-2005, 12:33 AM
Suff wrote:
starving to death? Please.
Ahh...want to play word games again, eh? You libs are good for coming up with euphemisms designed to tickle your ears and put salve on your consciences.
How 'bout, then, dehydrating to death, which is even a more painful death than starvation.
No wonder I have to use hyperbole to make a point around here.
You're confused as usual. You're using euphemisms, not hyperbole.
That statement has the feel ...that I'm in a room, locked away from my refridgerator, and being denied the right to eat.
Well...Terri is being denied her right to eat. So...what's the dif? If someone stuck you in a room and deprived you of your precious fridge -- the source of your food and water -- until you died (oh...scuse me -- until you "passed away" -- until you "transcended" to your higher plane -- to meet your "higher power" as you understood him/her/it :rolleyes: ), I'd be willin' to bet that some dumb DA somewhere would decide that a crime had been committed and would want the police to find the perpetrator so that that person could be prosecuted.
Terri Schiavo cannot eat. And when they call it a feeding tube, they are not stuffing peanut butter and Jelly sandwichs into a Tube. It is medical nutrients designed to sustain tissue and organ function.
Golly gee...I'll try to break this to ya as easy as I can...nourishment, which includes nutrirents of all stripes is what sustains tissues and organs even in people who can eat normally! She was receiving nourishments and water through a tube.
Main Entry:nour£ish£ment
Pronunciation:*n*r-ish-m*nt, *n*-rish-
Function:noun
Date:15th century
1 a : FOOD, NUTRIMENT b : SUSTENANCE 3 *books for intellectual nourishment*
2 : the act of nourishing : the state of being nourished
Boxcar
Suff wrote:
No wonder I have to use hyperbole to make a point around here.
You're confused as usual. You're using euphemisms, not hyperbole.
[
Boxcar
BUSH KILLS BABY...JOINS CULTURE OF DEATH
Hyberbole:
A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.
When you start from the premise that your the smartest guy in the room. Many things escape you.
boxcar
03-30-2005, 01:10 PM
Suff
"BUSH KILLS BABY...JOINS CULTURE OF DEATH"
"When you start from the premise that your the smartest guy in the room. Many things escape you".
The above was such a stupid remark and entirely irrelevant to anything that has to do with Terri Chiavo situation; for both situtations are as different from each other as day is from night.
So...while I'm not the "smartest guy in the room", what did not escape me are two above mentioned facts, which made ignoring your mindless and crude "hyperbole" ever so easy.
Boxcar
boxcar
03-30-2005, 01:28 PM
ljb
have a question for those here who keep whining about the "starving to death" of Terri Schiavo. Is that more cruel then suffocating this poor helpless baby?
There is a huge difference here. In the case of the baby, its intrinisic vital organs, which normally would "process" oxygen were completely shut down. His own inoperable, irrepairable lungs were the primary cause for his "suffocating". Therefore, it makes no sense to keep him artifically propped up with mahcines for the rest of his life to only perputate a sub-human state.
Further, the doctors said the baby would not live, therefore, it's condition was diagnosed as terminal.
Conversely, Terri Chiavo, is being deprived of life-giving sustenance (nourishment) that is extrinisc to her body and which her vital organs can process on their own. And since there is a good deal of disagreement among medical professionals as to whether or not she's in a "persistent vegatative state", and since she isn't terminal, those tubes should have been left in until until further testing was performed and therapy tried to see if she would respond favorably. Because she was also deprived of either of these strategies, and no can know with certainity what her unwritten and unrecorded wishes for living or dying are in such circumstances, we should err on the side of life -- at the very least until she has had the benefit of more advanced testing.
In short: Lots of question marks abound in her case, whereas there were none in the infant's situation -- which is, yet, another big difference.
Boxcar
Suff
"BUSH KILLS BABY...JOINS CULTURE OF DEATH"
"When you start from the premise that your the smartest guy in the room. Many things escape you".
The above was such a stupid remark and entirely irrelevant to anything that has to do with Terri Chiavo situation; for both situtations are as different from each other as day is from night.
Which one? That you think your smarter than everyone here? Or that Withdrawing Life support from this infant has parellels with the schiavo situation.
I don't think either is "stupid"... They both may be arguable, but not stupid.
The medical machinations are of course different to the extreme. But the "right to die" issue and government/family/legal involvement in Medical care are not irrelevant at all. As matter of fact, if we were looking for two cases to talk about, in the hopes of drafting new laws pertaining to right to die, these two are ideal. Because so many of the dynamics are simliar.
So I don't find the comparison stupid. Of course, I'm able to draw a distinction between "comparing" a situation and "equating" a situation. And that allows me to reach more informed conclusions on both cases.
So...while I'm not the "smartest guy in the room",
Maybe you are? I don't know. I think.. you think ...you are more intelligent than most here. You rarely share a point or thought, you generally dictate or pontificate your thoughts in a dictorial manner.
I'd bet your smarter than me at least.
So
what did not escape me are two above mentioned facts, which made ignoring your mindless and crude "hyperbole" ever so easy.
So I see you now agree I was using Hyperbole. And in your rush to correct me you ignored it or missed it. Thats ok. I do the same myself sometimes. I accept you with all your faults and errors.
Boxcar[/QUOTE]
boxcar
03-30-2005, 02:04 PM
Suff wrote
I don't think either is "stupid"... They both may be arguable, but not stupid.
The comparison was stupid because the similarities are superficial at best
But the "right to die" issue and government/family/legal involvement in Medical care are not irrelevant at all.
Okay...this is precisely what I'm talking about when I said that people like you love to employ euphemisms when discussing these kinds of social issues, i.e. the "right to die" in this instance.
From where do we derive this "right"? Who or what gave us this "right"? And when was this "right" given to us? Do all humans universally possess this right, or is this just a civil right of Americans?
And one more little thing before I go: Did you have a right to be born -- did you have a right to life?
I'll be waiting with bated breath for your answers.
Boxcar
Suff wrote
Okay...this is precisely what I'm talking about when I said that people like you I'll be waiting with bated breath for your answers.
Boxcar
Me to.
boxcar
03-30-2005, 11:39 PM
You're as dishonest as H'cap. Why did you deliberately misquote me, Suff?
And why don't you answer my questions about the "right to die" issue?
Anyone else have any courage and want to tackle my questions? Here again are my questions:
From where do we derive this "right"? Who or what gave us this "right"? And when was this "right" given to us? Do all humans universally possess this right, or is this just a civil right of Americans?
And one more little thing before I go: Did you have a right to be born -- did you have a right to life?
Boxcar
You're as dishonest as H'cap. Why did you deliberately misquote me, Suff?
Boxcar
NO I did'nt. I gutted your comments to highlight the portions of your post I would be refering to
1. This is "Precisely" what I am talking about.....and
2. People Like you
and my reply was "Me To"
Meaning... I also am talking aout people "like" you and what you are doing here is 'Precisely" what I am talking about.
.. do i gutta splain "everything" to yea?
boxcar
03-31-2005, 10:48 AM
Suff, you're still intellectually dishonest as they come. You made reference to the "right to die" issue, yet you're completely lost for words to explain on what basis anyone has the "right to die".
You're just another blustery windbag blowing a lot of hot air, having nothing of substance to say.
Boxcar
, yet you're completely lost for words
Boxcar
lol.. That'll be the day.
Right to die.. In the vien I used it.. Is a Cultural term meaning
when I go, how I go and under what cirumstances I go are none of your business. Nor the Govt's.
And further...I don't believe in "natural" death. If Death happened naturally.. Terri Schiavo would have died March 31st 1990.
boxcar
03-31-2005, 01:06 PM
Suff wrote:
Right to die.. In the vien I used it.. Is a Cultural term meaning.
What in the world does a "Cultural term meaning" mean!? :rolleyes:
You're playing your dumb word games again. What does our "culture" mean when it says we have a "right" to die? Who or what gave us this "right"? When was it given to us? Is this "right" universal or is it an American civil right? And did we have a right to be born -- a right to live?
when I go, how I go and under what cirumstances I go are none of your business. Nor the Govt's.
You're a real RIP. :rolleyes:
And further...I don't believe in "natural" death. If Death happened naturally.. Terri Schiavo would have died March 31st 1990.
I see...So, all deaths are "unnatural"?
Boxcar
boxcar
03-31-2005, 01:09 PM
Suff wrote:
lol.. That'll be the day.
Looks like the day has arrived by your steadfast refusal to answer the questions I once again posed in the post immediately preceding this one.
Boxcar
Suff wrote:
lol.. That'll be the day.
Looks like the day has arrived by your steadfast refusal to answer the questions I once again posed in the post immediately preceding this one.
Boxcar
Hey tough guy:
Wheres the confusion?
Its a cultural term, meaning:
1 xx x x
2,..xxxx
Yea get it now?
Jiminey christmas. Your ability to get outside your own scope of understanding really prohibits a productful back and forth.
boxcar
03-31-2005, 02:07 PM
Suff wrote:
Hey tough guy:
Wheres the confusion?
Its a cultural term, meaning:
1 xx x x
2,..xxxx
Yea get it now?
Yeah, I get it perfectly. You're a cowardly wimp who is unable to answer tough questions.
And I take it that those little "xx" represent the scars on your cortex? This would certainly account for your limitations to communicate meaningfully.
Jiminey christmas. Your ability to get outside your own scope of understanding really prohibits a productful back and forth.
The pot calling the kettle black. You' re certainly not making any effort whatsoever to move beyond the scope of your own understading, as evidenced by your persistent refusal to answer my questions. God forbid anyone should dare try to penetrate your little, warm, moist comfort zone.
The huge dif between you and me is that I can tell you what I believe and defend my beliefs, whereas all you can do is parrot the words of the "culture" without being able to defend why you believe as you do. You are truly a sheep being led to slaughter. As it is written:
Prov 8:36b
36 "...All those who hate me love death ."
NASB
The "me" in the larger context of the passage is Wisdom being personofied. The paragon of all Wisdom is Christ, who is the Wisdom of God (1 Cor 1:21).
It's no wonder at all, therefore, that this "culture" which hates Christ warmly embraces its cold, dark Culture of Death.
Boxcar
chickenhead
03-31-2005, 02:12 PM
boxcar, you do not think that death is a part of our nature? duality and all that?
Right to die.. In the vien I used it.. Is a Cultural term meaning
when I go, how I go and under what cirumstances I go are none of your business. Nor the Govt's.
And further...I don't believe in "natural" death. If Death happened naturally.. Terri Schiavo would have died March 31st 1990.
First of all , I answered the question you asked,,, about what I was reffering to when I said right to die...and the "xx's" represented the answer I typed out previously.....so that I would not have to type it again..
1. when I go and how I go
2. and under what cirumstances I go are none of your business.
3. Nor the Govt's.
Thats your answer. That I have now explained three times.
Suff wrote:
[The huge dif between you and me is that I can tell you what I believe and defend my beliefs, whereas all you can do is parrot the words of the "culture" without being able to defend why you believe as you do. You are truly a sheep being led to slaughter. As it is written:
Boxcar
You have'nt chosen your own individual beliefs at all. Not in any way shape or form.
A whole bunch of people, including kings, Queens, jews and the like , wrote a book about what they believe. And you have decided to mimmick them.
Nothing about what you believe is new , or orginal, nor singular to your own identity. You who openly say you are part of a "Flock"... are the sheep
Senator John C. Danforth. Republican, Conservative and Protestant Minister
Yesterdays Ny Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/30/opinion/30danforth.html?
I do not fault religious people for political action. Since Moses confronted the pharaoh, faithful people have heard God's call to political involvement. Nor has political action been unique to conservative Christians. Religious liberals have been politically active in support of gay rights and against nuclear weapons and the death penalty. In America, everyone has the right to try to influence political issues, regardless of his religious motivations.
The problem is not with people or churches that are politically active. It is with a party that has gone so far in adopting a sectarian agenda that it has become the political extension of a religious movement.
When government becomes the means of carrying out a religious program, it raises obvious questions under the First Amendment. But even in the absence of constitutional issues, a political party should resist identification with a religious movement. While religions are free to advocate for their own sectarian causes, the work of government and those who engage in it is to hold together as one people a very diverse country. At its best, religion can be a uniting influence, but in practice, nothing is more divisive. For politicians to advance the cause of one religious group is often to oppose the cause of another.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The article in its whole
BY a series of recent initiatives, Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians. The elements of this transformation have included advocacy of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, opposition to stem cell research involving both frozen embryos and human cells in petri dishes, and the extraordinary effort to keep Terri Schiavo hooked up to a feeding tube.
Standing alone, each of these initiatives has its advocates, within the Republican Party and beyond. But the distinct elements do not stand alone. Rather they are parts of a larger package, an agenda of positions common to conservative Christians and the dominant wing of the Republican Party.
Christian activists, eager to take credit for recent electoral successes, would not be likely to concede that Republican adoption of their political agenda is merely the natural convergence of conservative religious and political values. Correctly, they would see a causal relationship between the activism of the churches and the responsiveness of Republican politicians. In turn, pragmatic Republicans would agree that motivating Christian conservatives has contributed to their successes.
High-profile Republican efforts to prolong the life of Ms. Schiavo, including departures from Republican principles like approving Congressional involvement in private decisions and empowering a federal court to overrule a state court, can rightfully be interpreted as yielding to the pressure of religious power blocs.
In my state, Missouri, Republicans in the General Assembly have advanced legislation to criminalize even stem cell research in which the cells are artificially produced in petri dishes and will never be transplanted into the human uterus. They argue that such cells are human life that must be protected, by threat of criminal prosecution, from promising research on diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and juvenile diabetes.
It is not evident to many of us that cells in a petri dish are equivalent to identifiable people suffering from terrible diseases. I am and have always been pro-life. But the only explanation for legislators comparing cells in a petri dish to babies in the womb is the extension of religious doctrine into statutory law.
I do not fault religious people for political action. Since Moses confronted the pharaoh, faithful people have heard God's call to political involvement. Nor has political action been unique to conservative Christians. Religious liberals have been politically active in support of gay rights and against nuclear weapons and the death penalty. In America, everyone has the right to try to influence political issues, regardless of his religious motivations.
The problem is not with people or churches that are politically active. It is with a party that has gone so far in adopting a sectarian agenda that it has become the political extension of a religious movement.
When government becomes the means of carrying out a religious program, it raises obvious questions under the First Amendment. But even in the absence of constitutional issues, a political party should resist identification with a religious movement. While religions are free to advocate for their own sectarian causes, the work of government and those who engage in it is to hold together as one people a very diverse country. At its best, religion can be a uniting influence, but in practice, nothing is more divisive. For politicians to advance the cause of one religious group is often to oppose the cause of another.
Take stem cell research. Criminalizing the work of scientists doing such research would give strong support to one religious doctrine, and it would punish people who believe it is their religious duty to use science to heal the sick.
During the 18 years I served in the Senate, Republicans often disagreed with each other. But there was much that held us together. We believed in limited government, in keeping light the burden of taxation and regulation. We encouraged the private sector, so that a free economy might thrive. We believed that judges should interpret the law, not legislate. We were internationalists who supported an engaged foreign policy, a strong national defense and free trade. These were principles shared by virtually all Republicans.
But in recent times, we Republicans have allowed this shared agenda to become secondary to the agenda of Christian conservatives. As a senator, I worried every day about the size of the federal deficit. I did not spend a single minute worrying about the effect of gays on the institution of marriage. Today it seems to be the other way around.
The historic principles of the Republican Party offer America its best hope for a prosperous and secure future. Our current fixation on a religious agenda has turned us in the wrong direction. It is time for Republicans to rediscover our roots.
PaceAdvantage
03-31-2005, 08:09 PM
What does religion have to do about not wanting to force a brain damaged woman to starve/dehydrate to death?
I can think of nothing worse that that, and it has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with basic human nature and this country's disdain for CRUEL and UNUSUAL punishment.
boxcar
03-31-2005, 11:39 PM
Suff wrote:
You have'nt chosen your own individual beliefs at all. Not in any way shape or form.
Quite, right, sir. I cannot argue with you there. If God hadn't opened up my heart to understand the scriptures, I would never have chosen to believe the Word of God.
A whole bunch of people, including kings, Queens, jews and the like , wrote a book about what they believe. And you have decided to mimmick them.
Actually, sir, it wasn't all that many people -- God chose only around 70 people to inspire to write the bible over the course of 1,500 years or so.
Nothing about what you believe is new , or orginal, nor singular to your own identity.
No, but the contents are sure profound and sublime -- not to mention highly unpopular and despised by the world at large. So, I gotta figure I'm on the right track -- the track of the Righteous Minority, thanks solely to the life and work of Christ.
You who openly say you are part of a "Flock"... are the sheep.
Indeed. All people belong to one of two flocks -- those sheep led by the Good Shephard who watches over and protects his own, and the other led by ravenous wolves who very often appear in sheep's clothing as they lead their gullible, unsuspecting, foolish flocks to slaughter.
Boxcar
boxcar
03-31-2005, 11:49 PM
The problem is not with people or churches that are politically active. [b]It is with a party that has gone so far in adopting a sectarian agenda that it has become the political extension of a religious movement.
And what about the other side of the coin, eh? What about the party that has gone so far in adopting an openly wicked and ungodly worldy agenda that it has become the political extension of the secular humanist movement?
Boxcar
boxcar
04-01-2005, 12:09 AM
Suff wrote:
First of all , I answered the question you asked
[i]1. when I go and how I go
2. and under what cirumstances I go are none of your business.
3. Nor the Govt's.
Thats your answer. That I have now explained three times
Firstly, I asked several questions, not just one. Secondly, you provided a nonsensical reply because your "answers" are not related to my specific questions.
But your arrogant reply does reveal your wannabe god-like attitude, which reminds me of the indentical haughty and prideful attitude of your spiritual father (Satan) when he fell:
Ezek 28:1,6
28:1 The word of the LORD came again to me saying, 2 "Son of man, say to the leader of Tyre, 'Thus says the Lord GOD,
"Because your heart is lifted up
And you have said, 'I am a god,
I sit in the seat of gods, In the heart of the seas';
Yet you are a man and not God,
Although you make your heart like the heart of God...
6 Therefore, thus says the Lord GOD,
'Because you have made your heart
Like the heart of God,
NASB
The apple surely doesn't fall far from the tree, does it, Suff? Most especially when you consider that Christ taught that the Evil One was a murderer from the beginning and that his offspring always want to do his desires (Jn 8:44).
Didn't know that the Death Culture to which you subscribe has such an infamous leader, did you?
Boxcar
Equineer
04-01-2005, 12:20 AM
What does religion have to do about not wanting to force a brain damaged woman to starve/dehydrate to death?
I can think of nothing worse that that, and it has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with basic human nature and this country's disdain for CRUEL and UNUSUAL punishment.Your non-religious and seemingly non-political opinion is honest and valid. However, much of the dissonance was caused by uninformed religious zeal and political hypocrisy.
Tom Delay was surreptitiously taped telling staffers that Schiavo was a gift from God sent to rally and unite the Republican party. And the avowed strict Catholicism of the Schindlers was certainly not consistent with Catholic dogma when they testified that a patient has no moral authority to choose death.
Much has been made of statements published from depositions given by the Schindler family about Terri Schiavo: principally that she was a devout practicing Catholic, and that Catholic doctrine forbade removing her existing life support apparatus.
However, both of these assertions were refuted by Catholic priest Father Gerard Murphy in testimony given before Judge Greer on January 24, 2000.
Prior courtroom testimony had established that Schiavo had not participated in a Catholic communion or confession for at least two years preceding her heart attack.
Here, Father Murphy testifies about Schiavo's status as a practicing Catholic:
Q: Does the church have any particular definition of what a practicing Catholic is?
A: Certainly. We have what we call Easter duty, which means sometime from Lent to Trinity Sunday, in that three or four month window, a Catholic is required to receive holy communion. If necessary, confession. Catholics are mortally bound to assist at mass. Attend mass every Sunday. Every holy day of obligation. Certainly those are all criteria for a practicing Catholic.
Q: If Theresa Schiavo had not taken communion over a two year period before her medical incident and not participated in confession, would she be considered by the church to be a practicing Catholic?
A: Not according to the criteria. No. Practicing, no.
Q: Now Father Murphy, if a patient is in a permanent vegetative condition, maintained by artificial life support, and the patient's intent is not known, can a loved one who has the best interests of the patient at heart authorize removal of artificial life support consistent with church teachings?
A: I think in a case like this where so much time and effort has elapsed, I think, yes, it would be consistent.
=====
Later, Father Murphy testified that it is often difficult to educate Catholics about their own dogma concerning death:
Q: In the Catholic' faith, is death something that a practicing Catholic need fear?
A: No. No. In fact, that is a fundamental part of the Catholic faith. We call ourselves a pilgrim people. Life here on earth is really seen as a temporary stay. Catholics believe that our destiny is Heaven. Therefore, you can't do everything to prevent yourself from getting there. What is so hard to deal with in educating Catholics in these issues is that death is a part of life. It is a part of life. It's part of the process. No, Catholics should not fear death.
=====
And later still, he refuted the Schindler's assertion that a patient's wishes lack moral authority.
Q: Father Murphy, there was a section in the depositions of Mr. and Mrs. Schindler read in court already. You may remember them. Mr. and Mrs. Schindler were basically asked, just hypothetically, assume these were Terri's wishes. That she did not want to be kept alive artificially and that she did not want to be kept alive if she were a burden to others. Would that change your position in this case? They both answered no. My question is, is disregarding the intent of the patient consistent at all with Catholic teachings?
A: No. It is the perception of the patient that determines the morality of the action. Not the family, not the doctor, but the perception of the patient.
PaceAdvantage
04-01-2005, 12:21 AM
I feel like I'm watching that scene in Pulp Fiction....Boxcar, is your middle name, by any chance, "Jules?"
Next thing you know, you're going to be asking Suff for a bite of his hamburger! :lol:
PaceAdvantage
04-01-2005, 12:23 AM
Your non-religious and seemingly non-political opinion is honest and valid. However, much of the dissonance was caused by uninformed religious zeal and political hypocrisy.
This is all well and good, but please don't lump me in with that group of folks.
Lefty
04-01-2005, 12:35 AM
suff, you're insufferable and part of the culture of death. If the woman had been given swallow thereapy yrs ago maybe she wouldn't have had to be on a feeding tube. O'Reilly had it right. The husband should have stepped aside and let these loving parents care for her. I don't expect any of you death mongers to even remotely understand.
Lefty
04-01-2005, 12:50 AM
suff, you said that when you go and how you go is none of govts business. quite right, unless your wishes are unknown and your rights are being usurped by a faithless spouse and a nutty judge. I'm sure even you wouldn't want to be condemned too death on hearsay evidence.
boxcar
04-01-2005, 01:13 PM
Lefty wrote:
suff, you said that when you go and how you go is none of govts business. quite right, unless your wishes are unknown and your rights are being usurped by a faithless spouse and a nutty judge. I'm sure even you wouldn't want to be condemned too death on hearsay evidence.
You gotta be kiddin', Lefty. Libs squeal like stuck piggies whenever pond scum is about to be put to death on far more substantial evidence than this.
And since you mentioned "faithless spouse", my take on this guy's moral character is that it's down there wallowing in some cesspool. Here's why: Whenever a spouse breaks a sacred vow to someone he or she professes to love, how could such a person ever be trusted in any context -- in any kind of relationship? For not only was Michael Schiavo unfaithful -- not only did he break his marriage vows -- but he lied when he took those vows! While he may have had good intentions at the time he took the vows, nonethelss, the heart of man is so utterly deceitful that he wasn't aware that he was lying back then. The lie didn't surface until his vows were tested.
Boxcar
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.