GI_Admiral 2 Posted March 27, 2005 Well that's how we're raised. Use anything to get you ahead. Its our vaunted capitalism at work. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheUnknown 39 Posted March 27, 2005 ewok capitalism. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tsl 7 Posted March 27, 2005 The kind of power hunger at work here is not limited to capiltalistic societies by any means. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Radioactive Isotope 29 Posted March 27, 2005 ah, the Schiavo case. if her parents want to care for her, why not let them? but it's become more than that now. despite the fact the government swears this won't establish a precedent, it will, and now they get to decide who lives or dies. that is what worries me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alexander 0 Posted March 27, 2005 I agree that if Michael Schiavo does not want to care for Terri, but the parents do, they should be given that opprotunity. But in the final analysis, the parents are very selfish to keep her alive. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tsl 7 Posted March 27, 2005 If my parents tried to do this to me, I'd haunt them to death. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Princess 35 Posted March 28, 2005 So would I. And as it is, with her still alive, Michael can't get any closure, once she finally dies everyone will be able to get closure Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tsl 7 Posted March 28, 2005 Delay had his own father off life support If that's not proof that all of this Schiavo stuff is pure political greed than nothing is... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GI_Admiral 2 Posted March 28, 2005 Well...some (not I) would argue that they were 2 different cases. That one had life support and the other only had a feeding tube. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tsl 7 Posted March 28, 2005 Ahh, but then you misunderstand the meaning of the words "life support". This lady is being kept alive artificially. She is so brain damaged that she is unable to eat. She cannot physically chew or swallow and she is being fed formula through a tube directly inserted into her stomach through her skin. This IS life support. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Radioactive Isotope 29 Posted March 28, 2005 true, but isn't her heart still beating on its own and she's still breathing on her own? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GI_Admiral 2 Posted March 29, 2005 lol Im on your side TSL, I think she's as good as dead Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tsl 7 Posted March 29, 2005 true, but isn't her heart still beating on its own and she's still breathing on her own? Those are merely reflexes contained deep within the hind brain. Terri Schiavo is gone. That is merely her corpse being kept alive to make her parents feel better about it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Radioactive Isotope 29 Posted March 29, 2005 don't get me wrong, i don't think anyone should live that way. but i also don't think starving them to death is the most humane way to go about ending someone's suffering. and the government's involvement was the biggest mistake ever. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tsl 7 Posted March 29, 2005 Actually, stopping feeds while someone dies causes a natural realease of endorphins. Human body wasn't made to keep eating while dying. It's not natural. It is a cruel misunderstanding to continue feeding a dying person. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Radioactive Isotope 29 Posted March 29, 2005 it just doesn't sit well with me. i mean, if you can get arrested and do jail time for not feeding your dog for 2 weeks, why should we allow the same to be done to a human being? i know it's not the same thing, but again, i just don't like it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GI_Admiral 2 Posted March 29, 2005 Well...it's the matter of: Killing a person or Not helping a dying person in politicis (which honestly everything has become) its a big difference. Did you shoot someone? or did you just not take a bullet for someone who was about to get shot? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tsl 7 Posted March 29, 2005 it just doesn't sit well with me. i mean, if you can get arrested and do jail time for not feeding your dog for 2 weeks, why should we allow the same to be done to a human being? i know it's not the same thing, but again, i just don't like it. Bad comparison. Is your dog brain dead? If so, then you'd be doing right by him. In fact, we aren't so cruel to dogs as we are to humans. You'd have had your dog put down long before he got in that pitiful condition. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chickenman 9 Posted March 29, 2005 The fact that the government is getting involved is so ewoked up. This is between the parents and her husband. She's dead. Can you imagine just sitting there for 15 years? Just sitting there, not being able to do anything but look around? If nothing else, imagine how bored you'd get. It infuriates me to hear people like Michael Savage, a Rush Limbaugh wannabe talk about this subject: "Thank God I'm not in Florida right now. If I was, I'd be in jail right now. Because I would march an angry mob right up to that hospital. I swear to God, I would be in front, leading the mob, and we'd march right up to her room and plug the damn tube back in." Yeah. I'll bet. We only listen to him because the things he says are so ludicrous, that their only purpose is for a good laugh. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alexander 0 Posted March 29, 2005 From a law standpoint it isn't illegal to remove the feeding tube from Terri Schiavo. Some claim it is denying her rights to food and water, when in fact its simply letting her die as if she never had help in the first place. If we gave her a lethal injection to give her a quick and painless death that would be illegal under the law, which is pretty idiotic. I hate how the news has sided with the parents throughout this whole ordeal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ana 15 Posted March 29, 2005 If she didn't look like she was smiling, the media response would've been very different. You can get sympathy for her when she looks like she's smiling. If her face was in a frown, people wouldn't care about what happens to her. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alexander 0 Posted March 29, 2005 (edited) Speaking of sympathy: O', how the mighty have fallen... Edited March 29, 2005 by Alexander Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GI_Admiral 2 Posted March 29, 2005 Hey man, running Cali must be hard :p Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Radioactive Isotope 29 Posted March 29, 2005 heh. chunky Ahnuld. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ana 15 Posted March 29, 2005 Hehe... they must've been lacing him into a corset recently in publicity shots. :p Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
