Page 1 of 1
I thought Republicans liked the basis of American government

Posted:
Tue Mar 22, 2005 9:13 pm
by Excell
Last time I checked they were supposed to be the supporters of the Constitution and small government and our freedoms and all. Bush has so far decided that he thinks we need to have an amendment preventing gay marriage and apparently he plans on attempting to force the feeding tube back down Schiavo's throught. I think I smell a crazy Protestant....how about you guys?

Posted:
Tue Mar 22, 2005 9:21 pm
by EmperorJeramyu
I smelled that a loooong time ago... Still, the congress deal with Schiavo is a major piss off.

Posted:
Tue Mar 22, 2005 9:33 pm
by Excell
Oh, I was willing to ignore the first offense. But this makes two. What's next....witch hunts? This is the issue that Bush really bothers me on. He has no right to decide all of this stuff for people.

Posted:
Tue Mar 22, 2005 10:12 pm
by Takarious
I say just kill the vegie and decrease the surplus population...

Posted:
Wed Mar 23, 2005 1:53 am
by Teenr0cker
Now I do believe that this makes it the second time Bush has stepped in on something that concerns the law branch of our checks-and-balances system. I can't recall what my history teacher said, but I have him tomorrow, so I'll ask what the other instance was.

Posted:
Wed Mar 23, 2005 11:50 am
by Porter
If I were in that mentally retarded state for 15 years, I'd definatly want them to let me die. I think it's terrible that her family wants to keep her alive like that. Her husband is the only person with his head on straight.

Posted:
Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:04 pm
by Berserker
Not only they're letting her die, they're pratically letting her die from hunger.
So she's dying AND I guess she's suffering. Great.

Posted:
Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:07 pm
by Deltaway
The entire case is based on one thing: the definition of life.

Posted:
Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:18 pm
by OverlordBill
Life is clearly defined. It's conciousness that's the issue. There are eight characteristics of life that must be met for something to be considered alive. Cells are alive, viruses are not.
With conciousness it's a different matter. Is Terry Schiavo capable of feeling pain and having rational thought? Or is she just a husk of an organism without any higher levels of thought?
Any way you slice it, they're still starving her to death. We treat our most hated criminals (Not the worst even, just those who get media coverage) to faster deaths than that by lethal injection. Millions of people died in Concentration Camps during the Holocaust of starvation. Are we teasing Schiavo with small amounts of bread and diuretic soup?
I'm not comparing the doctors to Nazi's but... well yes I am. No matter what the situation, living things shouldn't be forced to starve so that we can put an unpleasant situation behind us.

Posted:
Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:54 pm
by Excell
She can't feel anything. Her nervous system is gone. Therefore she doesn't feel herself starving so she's not suffering at all. That's the problem....she basically feels nothing. There's no point to living.

Posted:
Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:59 pm
by Teenr0cker
According to doctors, in her current state, she would stay asleep during starvation, and if she were (and this is an IF) able to recognise this lack of food, she would eventually go into a deep sleep nonetheless. After her organs stop working due to lack of nutrients, that is.

Posted:
Wed Mar 23, 2005 11:45 pm
by Takarious
Yea but if you starve her to death, you save money on not having to prep a lethal injection. When it all boils down to it, it's probably chump change. But starving her is the economical route to go as far as effenciency is concerned. If it were my choice, I'd say drown her or something. It'd be fun to see if her muscles reflexivly tesnse up, or she squabbles about like a cock roach after being stomped on...

Posted:
Thu Mar 24, 2005 4:48 pm
by OverlordBill
Your nervous system can't just vanish. Just because she can't really respond to any sort of stimulus doesn't mean her body isn't able to feel it still.
And whether she can feel it or not, this is a human being that you're starving to death. Starvation is barbaric and there's nothing you can say otherwise.

Posted:
Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:18 pm
by Teenr0cker
I never said I approved of the starvation treatment, yet I do, but only to a certain extent. In that situation, I would choose, between delayed death or pulling the tube/plug, to die quickly. I would never want to become a burden on my family and prolong my life for nothing. But still, that really sucks to die even slower by starvation. So I guess I approve of the concept of ending her prolonged life, preferably by the most humane way possible, more than the actual method being used.
Whose decision is it to make? The husband, who has nothing to gain but the knowlidge of his wife finally passing on, has legal control over the matter. And for people who think he is being heartless and cold by starving her, remember: when you are married to someone, it's usually because you love them...usually. Or do the Parents have the choice? They are the parentsand...well, that's all they have going for them right now, but that's still pretty big.

Posted:
Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:12 pm
by Greatchickenman
I think there was this guy had been in a coma for like 10 or 20 years and finally woke up, but he had terrible amnesia and he couldn't remember who he was or where he was. He also ended up mentally retarded due to lack of any thinking for so long/