Friday, February 25, 2005


Terry Schiavo.

To be honest, I haven't followed her case that closely. Most of what I know comes from the conservative press, which obviously has an anti-euthanasia bias. So, right off the bat, I won't claim any factual justification for an opinion. Thus, I won't offer one.

However, until recently I had absolutely no idea that Schiavo's condition wasn't that of an unconcious, unresponsive brain-dead patient.

Watch this video, and you tell me whether she's in a vegetative state.

If her thoughts on the matter were known, and she wanted to die, I'd be sympathetic. But her thoughts are *not* known, and I'm sorry, you just don't get to flip a coin in this instance-- no, "It's heads, I guess I starve my wife to death. I sure hope she's okay with that. "

Read more-- a lot more-- at Wuzzadem's post on the subject.

Here's the thing.

Liberals are all eager to stop feeding Terry Schiavo and starve her to death. We think she may have once said something about not wanting to be a burden, according to her creep, financially-interested, already-found-a-new-hoochie husband.

This guy, however:

This guy is begging for martyrdom in clear, unambiguous terms.

But it would be VERY BAD even to shoot him just a little bit, much less lock him up and starve him to death.

Explain to me again why liberals are the smart ones?
Thank goodness nobody's protesting that nurses are bathing Schiavo. That sort of thing would get you a lawsuit at Gitmo.
Yes, Liberals are always so anxious to kill people and conservatives try ever so hard to save lives. Way to nail that one SD.
Liberals are not eager to stop feeding Schiavo, her husband is BECAUSE IT'S WHAT SHE WANTS. This guy didn't make this up - its what she requested: "If I ever go like that, just let me go. Don't leave me there. I don't want to be kept alive on a machine"

He is greedy because he sued the Doctor responsible for putting his wife in that state? Maybe sometimes lawsuits are not frivolous - like when the doctor is responsible for stopping a patients heart, collapsing their brain and causing permanent brain damage.

She has been in a vegetative state for almost 15 years now. She is not functioning - her brain doesn't work, her body doesn't work. And she said in "clear, unambiguous terms" that she wanted to die if ever in that situation.

This is about the patient and what she wants. Unfortunately it became politicized when consertives freaked out. Apparently they only like to kill when they hold the trigger, or switch.
FWIW, Ranger, I disagree with you.

First of all, she's not on life support, EXCEPT for a feeding tube. In other words, take the feeding tube out, and then wait for her to die. And wait. And wait. Starving to death takes a while, even for someone who's in a vegetative state. She's helpless as a baby, but not on life support.

Secondly, funny how Michael Schiavo didn't remember about Terri not wanting to be hooked up until after getting the malpractice money which he needed for rehabilitation. If he hadn't said ANYTHING about rehabilitation as part of that suit, it would be a less damning piece of history for him. He found another woman and had two kids with her. Michael Schiavo is at best questionable as an unbiased witness. Should Terri die based on the word of someone who has a vested interest in her not being around? This standard for a witness wouldn't hold up in a criminal court case, why should it hold up with relation to an innocent person.

Yeah, but conservatives tend toward the trigger-happy on evil people who do really bad things.

Terry Schiavo and the unborn and the old and inconvenient in Holland didn't do anything to make me want to kill them.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?