<p>MzLover - Being handicapped and being a vegetable are 2 entirely different issues. Genetic inferiority has absolutely nothing to do with the Terri Shiavo issue.</p>
<p>I think they should just let her die. By attempting to prolong her life, her family will only further psychological damage when she actually passes. She has no cerebral cortex, and will not recover. The right is just pulling for her to live, so they can further their baseless "Liberals want to kill people!" platform. </p>
<p>To those of you who say that you would choose to live in her position... shut the hell up. You have no idea what that would be like. It would be worse than hell. Just imagine being trapped in your own body, screaming and no one being able to hear it. </p>
<p>Oftentimes in cancer patients and with other terminal illness patients, it hurts more to live that it would to just pass on. My uncle has kidney cancer, and they gave him about a year to live... he's getting treatment now, and although it is painless, it gives him another 7 percent at 2 more years. Those odds just suck. The other alternatives are much more painful, and just not worth it. </p>
<p>We shouldn't be so afraid of death. Whether you are aetheist or Christian, or Hindu, or Buddhist, death means liberation from earthly suffering. Just let Terri die already.</p>
<p>What I don't get is why they let her starve. Regarldess of where you come down on the issue this just doesn't make sense.</p>
<p>People regard actively killing as worse than (somewhat) passive killing for some reason. They could actively kill her with some sort of painless injection, but in order to stay "passive" in the matter, they allow her to slowly starve to death.</p>
<p>Not feeding her has the exact same effect as actively killing her - she'll die. There are no "if," "ands," or "buts" about it. What's the point in making her suffer?</p>
<p>For example, would we consider it more moral for a state to practice lethal punishment by way of starvation chamber? </p>
<p>Human stupidity at its finest.</p>
<p>(and this isn't applicable to the Kevorkian-style assited suicide argument either - there's a big difference between deciding which people should be allowed to die and what to do with them once it has been decided they won't live on.)</p>
<p>I wonder what Dr. Kevorkian thinks about all of this? :X</p>
<p>"mzlover, you said you would choose to prolong life with a machine if you had no chance of recovery and were in this situation? But think about what kind of life it is that you'd be prolonging. You wouldn't even know that you were prolonging anything, you wouldn't remember anything. . . There's beauty in dying but not in that. What is the importance of living that kind of partial existence? Why is that so important? WHY!? Why is dying naturally so bad?" </p>
<p>You miss my point about individual choice. Some people (like me and Terri Schiavo) just don't want to die. </p>
<p>Show me where she said she wanted to be die (or better yet, exterminated), and I'll shut up.</p>
<p>Terri Schiavo actually doesn't know whether or not she wants to die, because no one knows if she actually knows anything at the moment.</p>
<p>Your "individual choice": may I ask what it is, why you personally wouldn't want to die in that situation?</p>
<p>I meant prior to her condition, but even then, who gave you the authority to decide whether someone should live or die? </p>
<p>Yeah, that's right, NOBODY. </p>
<p>Quite obviously the radical social leftists will say that she should die, but why? Under WHAT GROUNDS? and they don't even have to be moral grounds, just grounds based on the LAW. The last time I checked, the LAW, by which I mean the US Constitution which clearly states that nobody is to be denied of life, liberty, and property without the due process of law. And what is meant the "due process of law"? Chiefly, EVIDENCE! Where's the evidence that she wants to die?!?!? </p>
<p>YEAH, there is none, so what this case is essentially about is a person's right to live (which they may willingly give up) and other people's apathy regarding death and the desire to impart that macabre ideal upon others. </p>
<p>Moreover, jono, I know several people like her because I volunteer at hospitals and my school also has a large population of kids with permanent brain damage who can't speak, can't eat, can't go to the bathroom by themselves, etc. By your logic, I should be able to end their life with the push of a button. And of course we can't forget about the innumerable hordes running around in the world with an IQ of 70! </p>
<p>Eliminate them too, right?!?!? They can't think!!! Oh yeah, and after that why don't we get a new holocaust going again, one in which intelligence is used to decide who should live and who should die. I mean, some people out there don't even know what euthanasia is! What morons! Let's kill them!</p>
<p>the horror! the horror! </p>
<p>:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:</p>
<p>And to answer your question, I always look for the best in every situation and value it for what it will teach me.</p>
<p>Don't rant about IQ, because you know I didn't even approach the subject. You still didn't explain to me why you simply don't want to die. And why you said she also doesn't want to die I don't know, because as you said in your own logic against me, there is no record of any sort about what she wants. </p>
<p>I see you edited your post. Okay, so it wouldn't be a possibility, since you wouldn't know what is going on and it wouldn't be able to teach you anything. What would this teach to anyone, say her parents or husband?</p>
<p>Hm, ok. </p>
<p>I don't want to die because of numerous reasons</p>
<ol>
<li>I want to accomplish many things in my life</li>
<li>As aforementioned, I value life and, more specifically, I value human life above all else and would very much like to be able both observe it and be a part of it for the greatest amount of time possible </li>
<li>I'd like to see my grandchildren have kids, and have those kids remember me</li>
<li>I'd like to see a flying car</li>
<li>I believe and have my own published theories on the nature of reincarnation which suggest that the more humans live, the better. </li>
<li>Eventually I'd like to teach and I'd like to be doing that for the longest time possible.</li>
<li>I love the atoms which make me up. They'd worked ever so well.....However, they will probably never come together again to form a human life, so I want them to enjoy this one for as long as possible. </li>
</ol>
<p>....I could go on and on stating the same basic tenets of mahayana buddhism, which I have chosen to label myself as to make it easier for people to understand what I believe and why I believe it. </p>
<p>So yeah, that's me. Other people are free to think of life and death as they please, but certainly not to sit there and proclaim that Terri should die just because they say so!</p>
<p>but none of those reasons could work if you were in her position</p>
<p>You asked for MY reasons. </p>
<p>Obviously they don't work on her, they're mine! but I'm sure YOU have some sound reasons on the other side of the argument: why she should DIE. </p>
<p>Do tell.</p>
<p><em>wonders if they'll be in any way related to the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND</em></p>
<p>FIND IT. I DARE YOU. FIND A PART IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION WHICH GRANTS A PERSON OR A COURT THE POWER TO END A VEGETATIVE HUMAN LIFE.</p>
<p>I don't know about the law and I don't care. I'm talking about my feelings on the subject.</p>
<p>Well, right now she is being kept alive against nature so that she can live whatever life it is she's living now. I understand helping many patients live longer by technology. This is different for me. But I just think there's more dignity in appreciating the time spent in the past and not tainting it with years of experiencing her at her worst. Let's let nature happen.</p>
<p>Now it's not unfair of me to ask you to tell why you think she should live.</p>
<p>Because it is the federal government's to make sure that no citizen is deprived from "life, liberty, and property" without the "due process of law"!!!! I've said that like five times in this discussion. </p>
<p>The law is being teared to shreads by personal bias. </p>
<p>DOWN WITH PERSONAL BIAS!</p>
<p>I pro-life in every way, but if she had said that she wanted to die, then I would have no problem with it. But she didn't! The due process of law cannot be carried out without EVIDENCE, but the government must still protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens. If she was a slave, then I guess you could make the argument that she's property and she can be killed at the will of her husband, but she's not!</p>
<p>If you're just going to ask me for other reasons, I don't have any other than the outright violation of national law. But I guess you could read the Constitution and then come back and tear down my pathetic little argument if you find a particularly nuanced clause.</p>
<p>I don't know, it seems to me like the law has had a pretty big and consistent say in this case</p>
<p>HAH, no</p>
<p>But I can't give you an legitimate take on that because I haven't read the court transcripts. I will soon enough when I enter Law School, though. Look me up in two decades....I'll be mending the Democratic Party after it gets its appendages cut off by the three radically opposed social and fiscal groups (socially conservative blacks and hispanics who want lots of welfare, socially liberal white young people who hate welfare, and the hypocritical elite) which currently make up its bulk.</p>
<p>I've heard that the "Law" - judges, legislature, courts have refused to hear all the evidence. It has been slanted towards Michael Shiavo and his attorneys. That is why the US Senate and House voted for the federal judge to give it a deNovo(sp) review. But he DIDN'T, because he ruled in an hour and a half. What do we as a society do when the courts don't HEAR ALL THE EVIDENCE and rule in an unfair way? A fair judge would not have the attitude of "this has gone on for years, Judge X found this and Judge Y ruled that way."</p>
<p>IMHO, if conservatives wanted her to die, liberals would take the opposite side. Why does this have to be political? People are downright stupid if they think they can't have their own opinion in this case and have to be "at odds" with the 'other side.' Puhleeze.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I've heard that the "Law" - judges, legislature, courts have refused to hear all the evidence.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>100% correct. Like my conservative AP Government teacher said today, "It seems to me like that the courts no longer implement law through reason, but through inherent idiological bias."</p>
<p>To think that all of this would have been cleared up with the presence of a Living Will... There would be no ambiguity as to whether she wants extreme measures taken to prolong her life or to simply end it. I stress the fact that people need to have living wills in this day and age merely because you never know what might happen to you and would you really want the state to interfere in your case?</p>
<p>I've stayed away from this topic because it is really depressing to me. Mr. Schiavo appears as a selfish brute who doesn't care about his ailing wife at all. Yet, when you get past all the media spin, maybe he does indeed know what's best for his wife. Only he can know that. I empathize with Terri's parents as well - my grandmother was on life support for about two weeks and my mom and uncle and grandpa decided to take her off because he prospects for recovering to a responding state we very low. It was very hard for us, but we didn't want to face our grandma in that state - we wanted to remember her alive and well.</p>
<p>If I were a member of Congress, I would have abstained from voting (as about 100 Democrats did, not sure about Republicans though). If you vote to have the case be heard in a Federal Court, you would be perceived as being a member of government getting involved where he or she has no right to. If you voted against it, you would be classified as a horrible person who voted to essentially let someone die. </p>
<p>The political aspect of this could potentially hurt the Republicans. Their voting base is very pro-life, and they elect their representatives to represent their views. If their representatives let down the people (in their minds anyway), then the reps could lose seats. Also, with about 2/3 against the government getting involved, that could be another hit for the current administration.</p>
<p>I just hope this situation ends in whatever way it is destined to, but I can't even watch any news program on this because it's just too depressing for me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
100% correct. Like my conservative AP Government teacher said today, "It seems to me like that the courts no longer implement law through reason, but through inherent idiological bias."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Was there any doubt of this even lingering? I mean, come on, these are the people who JUSTIFY affirmative action by using a 14th amendment that opposes the practice in word and intent!</p>