Terry Shiavo Poll
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 18, 2024, 09:40:12 PM
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 ... 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 21222 times)
danwxman
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,532


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 18, 2005, 12:48:16 PM »

Let her go....
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 #1 on: March 18, 2005, 02:49:23 PM »

There is a dispute about what her wishes were and the family is divided on what to do.  So keep her alive, since that way if you end up being wrong, you can change your mind.  If you kill her and you turn out to be wrong, you can't go back.
Logged
bullmoose88
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,515


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 18, 2005, 03:08:15 PM »

Undecided.

Normally I'd say let her die, but theres something really fishy about this one.
Logged
DanielX
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,126
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 18, 2005, 03:26:04 PM »

I agree with John Ford. Also, the precedent if she is killed by court order is horrific... makes me think of the Netherlands... <shudder>.

EDIT: Or Oregon, for that matter.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 18, 2005, 04:07:03 PM »

I say keep her alive.  Primarily a combination of what John Ford and bullmoose said.
Logged
Blue Rectangle
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,683


Political Matrix
E: 8.50, S: -0.62

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 18, 2005, 04:08:24 PM »

The more I hear about this, the more it disturbs me.  One thing that irritates me most is the repeated use of inaccurate terms and euphemisms that the media insists on using.  For example:
Life Support:  Terri is not on life support.  Life support, such as a respirator, functions in place of a damaged autonomic nervous system.  Terri’s ANS works just fine; unlike, for example, Chris Reeve’s.
Right to Die:  The media repeatedly refers to this as a “right to die” case.  This is false.  Right to die concerns the right of a person to end their own life.  Terri’s wishes are not known.  The “right” in this case is therefore the right of others to kill Terri.
Let Her Die:  Starving someone to death is not “letting” them die any more than straggling someone is letting them die.  Many people are unable to feed themselves: infants, many elderly, Chris Reeve, Stephen Hawking, prisoners, intensive care patients, etc.  Withholding food from any one of these people would be murder and would be prosecuted as such.
Keep Her Alive:  How is feeding someone “keeping” them alive?  This makes it sound like something extraordinary must be done to prevent her from dying.

Like Daniel, I am also horrified that the state is going to kill her.  Is the alternative, that her parents continue to care for her, really so awful that the state is compelled to step in?
Logged
Hitchabrut
republicanjew18
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,674


Political Matrix
E: 8.38, S: 7.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 18, 2005, 05:03:07 PM »

There seems to be no hope, so it would be moral to let her die. If the state can come up with a way to prove that she could be functional once more, I would give them a chance.
Logged
danwxman
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,532


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 18, 2005, 05:11:01 PM »

The courts have ruled against the parents time and time again. There is no basis for keeping her alive -- it is the husbands will.
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 #8 on: March 18, 2005, 05:26:49 PM »

Let her die. She's a vegetable.
Logged
Cashcow
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,843


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 18, 2005, 05:34:49 PM »

Let the poor woman go already.
Logged
Moooooo
nickshepDEM
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,909


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 18, 2005, 05:47:49 PM »
« Edited: March 24, 2005, 07:26:40 PM by Alcon »

The prick husband should let her parents decide.  He doesnt seem to give a crap.
Logged
TheWildCard
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,529
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 18, 2005, 06:28:16 PM »
« Edited: March 24, 2005, 07:26:33 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.
Logged
Dave from Michigan
9iron768
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,298
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 18, 2005, 06:48:18 PM »

I say kept her alive
Logged
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 #13 on: March 18, 2005, 06:50:40 PM »

Her husband wants her gone for money, and so he can live with his girlfriend in the house he bought with the money she won in a lawsuit.  He is a terrible person, and really shouldn't get to decide whether his wife, and I use that term losely.  

Disregarding everything, the women is being STARVED to death.  If the women should die, why not inject her with cyanide or something and kill her immediately.  This is a Pro-life/pro-euthanasia issue, but also an issue of starving a women to death for no crime other than having a bastard for a husband and getting hurt.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 18, 2005, 07:06:52 PM »

By "Let her die" you mean "Kill her", right?
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,568


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: March 18, 2005, 07:09:07 PM »

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.
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 #16 on: March 18, 2005, 07:11:52 PM »

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

Not necessarily.  If someone, with no external assistance whatsoever, would die naturally, and is being kept alive solely through external intervention, and if that person has very little chance to ever be able to live without that assistance, it could scarcely be counted as murder to simply not give that intervention.

That said, I hardly think that letting someone starve to death is a humane way to let someone die.
Logged
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 #17 on: March 18, 2005, 07:12:12 PM »

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.

Except starve her to death

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110006442

Article by Peggy Noonan on this issue.  She raises an excellent point about the husband.  He seems to be quite set on killing his wife, but to what end?  He doesn't seem like the kind of person that is prepared to make a unbiased decision, especially when all he wants is money and to no longer be married to her.
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,166
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: March 18, 2005, 08:27:46 PM »

No reason not to let her live.  Weird stuff can happen in coma cases.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: March 18, 2005, 08:49:14 PM »
« Edited: March 24, 2005, 07:27:01 PM by Alcon »

DONTGIVEAFLYING

youze really ought to remember to add that option in the future.
Logged
Cashcow
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,843


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: March 18, 2005, 08:49:40 PM »
« Edited: March 24, 2005, 07:27:08 PM by Alcon »

DONTGIVEAFLYING

youze really ought to remember to add that option in the future.

THE LANGUAGE IS BURNING MY EYES!!!!
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: March 18, 2005, 08:53:09 PM »

DONTGIVEAFLYINGFUKK

youze really ought to remember to add that option in the future.

THE LANGUAGE IS BURNING MY EYES!!!!

maybe you got a little cum in it or something.

just kidding.  that's not a stab, just trying to see if his royal highness is paying attention.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: March 18, 2005, 09:14:06 PM »

I have stated my views earlier.

I don't think extraordinary means should be used to keep people alive when they are functioning in a vegetative state, and there is no hope of reversal of that state.

However, I don't consider feeding somebody to be extraordinary means.  We have no right to starve her to death.  I would turn off respirators, discontinue medication if it were being used to keep her alive, etc., but cutting off food is in a different league.  That I would consider murder.
Logged
danwxman
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,532


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: March 18, 2005, 09:58:46 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.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: March 18, 2005, 10:50:56 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.

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."
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 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 0.044 seconds with 14 queries.