Terry Shiavo Poll
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 02:25:21 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Terry Shiavo Poll
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 12
Poll
Question: Should Terry Shiavo be kept alive or let die?
#1
(D) Keep her alive
 
#2
(D) Let her die
 
#3
(R) Keep her alive
 
#4
(R) Let her die
 
#5
(I/O) Keep her alive
 
#6
(I/O) Let her die
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 89

Author Topic: Terry Shiavo Poll  (Read 21230 times)
Jake
dubya2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,621
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: March 18, 2005, 11:06:46 PM »

Well, the religious right viciously attacked Kevorkian too. I agree that letting her starve to death is a little inhumane -- although she probably won't feel it. But the radical right feels that it's a more natural process then simply injecting her with something and letting her go quietly.

This woman is not brain dead or in a coma.  I'm 100% sure that if you stuck a hot iron against her skin, she would feel and react to pain.  If a dog was starved, it would feel and react to the pain and agony of getting starved.  I can't do this kind of crap to my pets, or any animal or I'd go to jail. Why is it now alright to do this to a human being.

And dazzleman, I agree about extroidinary measures.  Feeding tube is ok, but if they're on a respirator, it's time to give it up and let natural death take its course. 
Logged
danwxman
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,532


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: March 19, 2005, 12:07:21 AM »

Well, the religious right viciously attacked Kevorkian too. I agree that letting her starve to death is a little inhumane -- although she probably won't feel it. But the radical right feels that it's a more natural process then simply injecting her with something and letting her go quietly.

So you'd just flat-out kill her, without even the pretense of calling the feeding tube extraordinary life support?

Unfortunately, our propensity to take life and death decisions into our own hands greatly exceeds our wisdom on how to handle these matters.

I also find it funny that people who are willing to flat-out kill Terry Schiavo would fight tooth and nail to prevent vicious murderers from receiving the death penalty.  Very strange political philosophy, this thing we call "liberalism."

I think you totally misunderstood me, as usual.

Either way, I am pro-death penalty.

Ooops, guess your endless liberal stereotyping doesn't always work.
Logged
danwxman
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,532


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: March 19, 2005, 12:09:54 AM »

Well, the religious right viciously attacked Kevorkian too. I agree that letting her starve to death is a little inhumane -- although she probably won't feel it. But the radical right feels that it's a more natural process then simply injecting her with something and letting her go quietly.

This woman is not brain dead or in a coma.  I'm 100% sure that if you stuck a hot iron against her skin, she would feel and react to pain.  If a dog was starved, it would feel and react to the pain and agony of getting starved.  I can't do this kind of crap to my pets, or any animal or I'd go to jail. Why is it now alright to do this to a human being.

And dazzleman, I agree about extroidinary measures.  Feeding tube is ok, but if they're on a respirator, it's time to give it up and let natural death take its course. 

Her cerebral cortex is full of spinal fluid....she's done, she's gone, it's over. She has no hope of recovery. Her brain will never fully function again.

Just like some on the left used Christopher Reeve's death for political purposes, you guys on the right are using this vegetable to advance your agenda.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: March 19, 2005, 12:13:34 AM »

Well, the religious right viciously attacked Kevorkian too. I agree that letting her starve to death is a little inhumane -- although she probably won't feel it. But the radical right feels that it's a more natural process then simply injecting her with something and letting her go quietly.

This woman is not brain dead or in a coma.  I'm 100% sure that if you stuck a hot iron against her skin, she would feel and react to pain.  If a dog was starved, it would feel and react to the pain and agony of getting starved.  I can't do this kind of crap to my pets, or any animal or I'd go to jail. Why is it now alright to do this to a human being.

And dazzleman, I agree about extroidinary measures.  Feeding tube is ok, but if they're on a respirator, it's time to give it up and let natural death take its course. 

are using this vegetable

How respectful, you piece of trash.
Logged
danwxman
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,532


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: March 19, 2005, 12:17:27 AM »

Well, the religious right viciously attacked Kevorkian too. I agree that letting her starve to death is a little inhumane -- although she probably won't feel it. But the radical right feels that it's a more natural process then simply injecting her with something and letting her go quietly.

This woman is not brain dead or in a coma.  I'm 100% sure that if you stuck a hot iron against her skin, she would feel and react to pain.  If a dog was starved, it would feel and react to the pain and agony of getting starved.  I can't do this kind of crap to my pets, or any animal or I'd go to jail. Why is it now alright to do this to a human being.

And dazzleman, I agree about extroidinary measures.  Feeding tube is ok, but if they're on a respirator, it's time to give it up and let natural death take its course. 

are using this vegetable

How respectful, you piece of trash.

Umm....her official condition is a "persistent vegetative state"!

The trash in this situation is the radical right who are using Shiavo to advance their political agenda. It was wrong when the left did it with Reeves, and it's wrong here.

Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: March 19, 2005, 12:21:26 AM »

Well, the religious right viciously attacked Kevorkian too. I agree that letting her starve to death is a little inhumane -- although she probably won't feel it. But the radical right feels that it's a more natural process then simply injecting her with something and letting her go quietly.

This woman is not brain dead or in a coma.  I'm 100% sure that if you stuck a hot iron against her skin, she would feel and react to pain.  If a dog was starved, it would feel and react to the pain and agony of getting starved.  I can't do this kind of crap to my pets, or any animal or I'd go to jail. Why is it now alright to do this to a human being.

And dazzleman, I agree about extroidinary measures.  Feeding tube is ok, but if they're on a respirator, it's time to give it up and let natural death take its course. 

are using this vegetable

How respectful, you piece of trash.

Umm....her official condition is a "persistent vegetative state"!

The trash in this situation is the radical right who are using Shiavo to advance their political agenda. It was wrong when the left did it with Reeves, and it's wrong here.



I don't care what her condition is. Don't refer to her as 'this vegetable."
Logged
danwxman
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,532


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: March 19, 2005, 12:22:32 AM »

Well, the religious right viciously attacked Kevorkian too. I agree that letting her starve to death is a little inhumane -- although she probably won't feel it. But the radical right feels that it's a more natural process then simply injecting her with something and letting her go quietly.

This woman is not brain dead or in a coma.  I'm 100% sure that if you stuck a hot iron against her skin, she would feel and react to pain.  If a dog was starved, it would feel and react to the pain and agony of getting starved.  I can't do this kind of crap to my pets, or any animal or I'd go to jail. Why is it now alright to do this to a human being.

And dazzleman, I agree about extroidinary measures.  Feeding tube is ok, but if they're on a respirator, it's time to give it up and let natural death take its course. 

are using this vegetable

How respectful, you piece of trash.

Umm....her official condition is a "persistent vegetative state"!

The trash in this situation is the radical right who are using Shiavo to advance their political agenda. It was wrong when the left did it with Reeves, and it's wrong here.



I don't care what her condition is. Don't refer to her as 'this vegetable."

"Persistent vegetative state"

Don't use her to advance your political agenda, which is far worse.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: March 19, 2005, 12:25:26 AM »

Well, the religious right viciously attacked Kevorkian too. I agree that letting her starve to death is a little inhumane -- although she probably won't feel it. But the radical right feels that it's a more natural process then simply injecting her with something and letting her go quietly.

This woman is not brain dead or in a coma.  I'm 100% sure that if you stuck a hot iron against her skin, she would feel and react to pain.  If a dog was starved, it would feel and react to the pain and agony of getting starved.  I can't do this kind of crap to my pets, or any animal or I'd go to jail. Why is it now alright to do this to a human being.

And dazzleman, I agree about extroidinary measures.  Feeding tube is ok, but if they're on a respirator, it's time to give it up and let natural death take its course. 

are using this vegetable

How respectful, you piece of trash.

Umm....her official condition is a "persistent vegetative state"!

The trash in this situation is the radical right who are using Shiavo to advance their political agenda. It was wrong when the left did it with Reeves, and it's wrong here.



I don't care what her condition is. Don't refer to her as 'this vegetable."

"Persistent vegetative state"

Don't use her to advance your political agenda, which is far worse.

Once again, whatever state they are saying she is in, that has nothing to do with what you call her. I know you having difficulty understanding things I point out but this is not hard to comprehend.

I'm not using anyone for my political agenda, pal. Some of us actually do care.
Logged
phk
phknrocket1k
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,906


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: March 19, 2005, 12:37:27 AM »
« Edited: March 19, 2005, 12:41:18 AM by Marxism- Leninism »

Well, the religious right viciously attacked Kevorkian too. I agree that letting her starve to death is a little inhumane -- although she probably won't feel it. But the radical right feels that it's a more natural process then simply injecting her with something and letting her go quietly.

This woman is not brain dead or in a coma.  I'm 100% sure that if you stuck a hot iron against her skin, she would feel and react to pain.  If a dog was starved, it would feel and react to the pain and agony of getting starved.  I can't do this kind of crap to my pets, or any animal or I'd go to jail. Why is it now alright to do this to a human being.

And dazzleman, I agree about extroidinary measures.  Feeding tube is ok, but if they're on a respirator, it's time to give it up and let natural death take its course. 

are using this vegetable

How respectful, you piece of trash.

Umm....her official condition is a "persistent vegetative state"!

The trash in this situation is the radical right who are using Shiavo to advance their political agenda. It was wrong when the left did it with Reeves, and it's wrong here.



I don't care what her condition is. Don't refer to her as 'this vegetable."

"Persistent vegetative state"

Don't use her to advance your political agenda, which is far worse.

Once again, whatever state they are saying she is in, that has nothing to do with what you call her. I know you having difficulty understanding things I point out but this is not hard to comprehend.

Okay, can you comprehend the the fact that medical professionals use the term vegetable for people in a vegetative state?

For example,  when a person is no longer considered as human but as a vegetable, then that person could be euthanized, like a sick animal or a diseased plant. The same is true when we think of the unborn child as a "embryo" or "the product of conception" rather than as a "baby".

Wasn't too tough was it?
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: March 19, 2005, 12:42:22 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was not a respectful use of the term. I know people will refer to others as "vegetables" but I don't think dan used it in an appropriate way. This could also stem from dan's insensitive comments about the Pope's health when he said that he really didn't care and didn't want to hear about the man basically because it didn't concern him.
Logged
danwxman
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,532


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: March 19, 2005, 12:43:38 AM »
« Edited: March 24, 2005, 07:28:05 PM by Alcon »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was not a respectful use of the term. I know people will refer to others as "vegetables" but I don't think dan used it in an appropriate way. This could also stem from dan's insensitive comments about the Pope's health when he said that he really didn't care and didn't want to hear about the man basically because it didn't concern him.

This is how you derail debate. Semantics. Who gives a damn?
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: March 19, 2005, 12:46:20 AM »
« Edited: March 24, 2005, 07:27:53 PM by Alcon »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was not a respectful use of the term. I know people will refer to others as "vegetables" but I don't think dan used it in an appropriate way. This could also stem from dan's insensitive comments about the Pope's health when he said that he really didn't care and didn't want to hear about the man basically because it didn't concern him.

This is how you derail debate. Semantics. Who gives a damn?

Debating (if you can even call it that) with you is always a good time. It consists mainly of me making a point and then you running away from it, always insisting that I am the one changing the discussion. But whatever. Continue the discussion. My position is clear: Let her live. She will be kept in my prayers.
Logged
Rob
Bob
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,277
United States
Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -9.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: March 19, 2005, 01:43:43 AM »

I don't know what the big deal is. Dan just used the medically correct term, which in this case happens to be "vegetable", and you flipped out, Phil.

Political correctness is a growing problem on this forum.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: March 19, 2005, 01:45:23 AM »

I'm glad to see that in America a dog is afforded a better death then a human being. Sick Sick world we live in.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: March 19, 2005, 01:57:59 AM »
« Edited: March 19, 2005, 02:12:24 AM by John D. Ford »

The husband isn't doing it for money.  He was offered $1 million to walk away and said no.  He is doing this because he truly believes Teri would want to die.

Here's the problem with his position:

His own conviction aside, he has no evidence that Teri actually wanted this!  There is no living will, no note scribbled on a cocktail napkin, no witnesses to the conversation, and she never relayed these feelings to another single human being at any point in her life.  We are supposed to believe that the wishes of the entire family, with the exception of this husband, should be discarded and an irrevocable decision to end Teri's life made should be made solely on Micahel Schaivo's word that Teri told him she wanted to die (And never suggested any such thing even to her parents or closest friends at any point in her entire life!).  This is a bridge too far for me.

Michael Schaivo's whole case is based on hearsay, and would be dismissed by any competent  judge.  Instead, this goofball judge has made it the centerpiece of his ruling in favor of Michael Schaivo!  This is the same judge who is ignoring a Congressional request for testimony from Teri Schaivo (Even if it is grandstanding, that doesn't affect the legal merits of the request), a Federal crime called Contempt of Congress.  This judge is either wholly ignorant of the law, or entirely willing to flout it to advance personal ideology.  It can't get any clearer than Contempt of Congress, pal.

Do not make a rash decision to end Teri's life on hearsay evidence against the wishes of her actual family.  I say actual family because Michael Schaivo is now living with another woman and has sired two children with her, so to me he is no longer part of her family in any real sense although he retains legal standing as her husband.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: March 19, 2005, 02:06:49 AM »

The husband isn't doing it for money.  He was offered $1 million to walk away and said no.  He is doing this because he truly believes Teri would want to die.

Here's the problem with his position:

His own conviction aside, he has no evidence that Teri actually wanted this!  There is no living will, no note scribbled on a cocktail napkin, no witnesses to the conversation, and she never relayed these feelings to another single human being at any point in her life.  We are supposed to believe that the wishes of the entire family, with the exception of this husband, should be discarded and an irrevocable decision to end Teri's life made should be made, solely on Micahel Schaivo's word that Teri told him she wanted to die and never suggested any such thing even to her parents or closest friends at any point in her entire life!  This is a bridge too far for me.

Michael Schaivo's whole case is based on hearsay, and would be dismissed by any competent  judge.  Instead, this goofball judge has made it the centerpiece of his ruling in favor of Michael!  This is the same judge who is ignoring a Congressional request for testimony from Teri Schaivo (Even if it is grandstanding, that doesn't affect the legal merits of the request), a Federal crime called Contempt of Congress.  This judge is either wholly ignorant of the law, or entirely willing to flout it to advance personal ideology.  It can't get any clearer than Contempt of Congress, pal.

Do not make a rash decision to end Teri's life on hearsay evidence against the wishes of her actual family.  I say actual family because Michael Schaivo is now living with another woman and has sired two children with her, so to me he is no longer part of her family in any real sense although he retains legal standing as her husband.

What John Ford just said here.  Hits the nail on the head and describes the case to a tee.
Logged
TheWildCard
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,529
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: March 19, 2005, 02:12:43 AM »
« Edited: March 19, 2005, 02:14:22 AM by Governor Wildcard »

The husband isn't doing it for money.  He was offered $1 million to walk away and said no.  He is doing this because he truly believes Teri would want to die.

With all due respect John,

Here's the problem with your point. From what I understand $1 million is exactly what he gets if she dies. If he accepts, sure he gets $1M but what kind of a man does he look like then? His reputation would forever be shattered.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: March 19, 2005, 02:27:15 AM »

The husband isn't doing it for money.  He was offered $1 million to walk away and said no.  He is doing this because he truly believes Teri would want to die.

With all due respect John,

Here's the problem with your point. From what I understand $1 million is exactly what he gets if she dies. If he accepts, sure he gets $1M but what kind of a man does he look like then? His reputation would forever be shattered.

What is he, running for office?  If those who say its all about the money are right, then why does he care about image?  Since he already looks like scum to most people, he seems to me to have two options to get his $1 million.

Take the $1 million, walk away, look like a jerk.
Fight on, take the $1 million when she dies, look like a jerk.

Either way, he'd get paid, and either way, he looks like a douchebag.

The route he's taken though he risks not getting one dime.  If he loses the case he gets no money.  There are only two reasons he'd keep fighting the case then, the first reason he'd continue the case is that he's more than 100% sure that he'll win the case, since the alternative gives him a 100% chance at $1 million and only a greater than 100% chance could convince him to keep the case going over taking the sure $1 million.  Or, the second reason could be that it isn't about the money, and that he really thinks this is what Teri wants.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: March 19, 2005, 02:30:04 AM »

What kind of precendent would this case set if she is allowed to die? Could husbands who beat their wives into comas lie to courts and say, "She wanted to be pulled off life support"? This whole case is based on hearsay and this judge is completely out of bounds. But that's not a suprise with the judges in this country anymore.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: March 19, 2005, 02:32:26 AM »

What kind of precendent would this case set if she is allowed to die? Could husbands who beat their wives into comas lie to courts and say, "She wanted to be pulled off life support"? This whole case is based on hearsay and this judge is completely out of bounds. But that's not a suprise with the judges in this country anymore.

I am really undecided on this, but I do not understand why it matters whether he beat her or not to the decision. Either way, the argument is whether she could return to normal or not. Her husband having beaten her is not going to change whether she can or not.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: March 19, 2005, 02:45:03 AM »

What kind of precendent would this case set if she is allowed to die? Could husbands who beat their wives into comas lie to courts and say, "She wanted to be pulled off life support"? This whole case is based on hearsay and this judge is completely out of bounds. But that's not a suprise with the judges in this country anymore.

I am really undecided on this, but I do not understand why it matters whether he beat her or not to the decision. Either way, the argument is whether she could return to normal or not. Her husband having beaten her is not going to change whether she can or not.

I thin kState's point is that it sets a bad precedent and gives wife beaters an easy way out of such situations.

The other element of the decision is who should be allowed to make the choice of whether she lives or dies.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: March 19, 2005, 02:58:35 AM »

What kind of precendent would this case set if she is allowed to die? Could husbands who beat their wives into comas lie to courts and say, "She wanted to be pulled off life support"? This whole case is based on hearsay and this judge is completely out of bounds. But that's not a suprise with the judges in this country anymore.

Well to me the key thing is that Michael Schiavo testified that Terri Schiavo told her that she would want to die in that situation.  No written proof, no records, no nothing.

And the judge ruled that Terri Schiavo wanted to die based on what her husband said.  No written proof, no records, no nothing.

Simply ridiculous.  In any court of law, in anything.  I don't have to be a lawyer to recognize the craziness of that ruling.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: March 19, 2005, 03:23:51 AM »

I should note that my response to Supersoulty wasn't an indication that I'm in favor of letting Teri (Terri?  Terry?  I've seen three different spellings...) die.

I've always been in favor of allowing euthenasia if the patient directly requests it, and my position does not change in this case.  Since Teri can't request it, I don't believe we should be pulling the proverbial plug.  We can speculate all we want, but in the end we don't know, and if it somehow comes to light that she did not, in fact, want to die, there is no going back if we do make the mistake of having her die.  We should wait until we know for sure.

As an aside, this is also the reason I'm against the death penalty, but that's another story that is probably not appropriate for this debate.
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,443


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: March 19, 2005, 04:15:31 AM »
« Edited: March 24, 2005, 07:28:54 PM by Alcon »

The prick husband should let her parents decide.  He doesnt seem to give a crap.

Oh he gives a crap alright... She dies he gets insurance money.

From what I've heard the way she even got into this state is suspicous.

I say keep her alive she is still responding to the world around her in certain ways.

The whole thing about the insurance $$ is a bunch of crap.  He was actually offered more $$$ to let her stay alive then he would ge if she dies and he turned it down
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: March 19, 2005, 05:19:20 AM »

By "Let her die" you mean "Kill her", right?

You could just remove her from life support, then you wouldn't be doing any action to specifically kill her.

I think it would be much kinder to kill her using some sort of painless drugs than to let her die by removing life support or feeding tubes, whatever it is.  I think we all need to be a bit more honest about our mortality - we're all going to be dead soon enough, and 'life after death' is a nonsensical and psychologically self-serving fairy tale.  So lets just try to minimize pain and suffering.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 12  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.079 seconds with 13 queries.