Woman to Woman

By Katy Minter

March 14, 2005 07:30 AM | Link to this

You are we to judge the quality of a perons life? I can understand “pulling the pug” for breathing machine or machines that are pumping a heart when there is no brain activitu….but the Terri Shaivo situation is to forcably starve her to death. This is not compassion in any sense. This is Cruelty.

By Whiley

March 14, 2005 08:05 AM | Link to this

WHAT does Terri Schiavo have to do with feminists? Abortion rights? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ! If it were MR.SCHIAVO in the same shape, I’d say let him go in peace too. Hasn’t she been a vegetable for 15 YEARS? How selfish & rude it is to accuse MR. Schiavo of just wanting to marry his “mistress”.

I would despise my family if they forced me to remain in a vegetative state & would not allow me to pass on in peace.

I’m afraid for the future elderly & terminally ill. With technology improving everyday, what’s next, keeping people alive for 150 years + just because we can keep their bodies alive?

By RS

March 14, 2005 08:20 AM | Link to this

I agree with Whiley 100%!!!!! Yes, let that poor woman go in peace. Don’t STARVE her to death, a legal injection would be quicker & easier but for goodness sake, why let her “live” a life that’s no longer viable??

By Bob Swygert

March 14, 2005 09:13 AM | Link to this

Terri Schiavo’s brain function is impared but she is not “dying.” This IS NOT a case of allowing nature to “take its course” with a dying person… this is a case of murdering a person because we don’t feel she has a good “quality of life.” That’s a slippery slope that can only lead to a holocaust.

By Jack

March 14, 2005 09:30 AM | Link to this

Whiley, RS: Ditto. I told my wife that if I were in Terry’s condition and she did not pull the plug, I would come back to haunt them.

By Mary

March 14, 2005 09:37 AM | Link to this

Ms. Glass refers to Mr. Schivo as Terri Schivo’s “former” husband. There has been no divorce or there would be no issue because her parents would have been apointed as her guardians Since he refuses to divorce her and the court refuses to allow her parents to sue for divorce on her behalf, they are still married. I find it suspicious that this man refuses to do the obvious and divorce her and allow her parents to take care of her as they obviously want to do.

By chuck

March 14, 2005 09:45 AM | Link to this

A DNR order in the hospital when one is terminally ill is one thing. It simply states, If my heart stops beating, do not resuscitate me. Don’t do CPR, don’t put me on a respirator, and don’t shock me. In other words, don’t take heroic measures to save my life, when ultimately I am going to die soon anyway of natural causes. I don’t have any problem with that. The Shiavo case is very different from that. She has brain activity, she breathes on her own, and has periods of time where she is able to interact with her family in a limited way. What they want to do to her is to starve her to death. There have been a number of cases in the news recently, where parents were arrested for allowing their children to starve to death. This is cruel AND inhuman. Since she has brain activity, she is alive and therefore, no one should be allowed to forceably end her life by starvation or any other means.

By Lee

March 14, 2005 09:53 AM | Link to this

Shaunti’s opening statement shows that she doesn’t want to deal with the issue at hand. It’s not a feminist fight, it’s a quality of life fight.

Terri Shiavo has significant brain damage. If she was able to communicate, she would be able to decide. Mr. Shiavo became a trained nurse to take care of his wife. After struggling with it for years and his wife not improving, he knew that this is not the life his wife would have wanted. Sadly, a living will was not filled out with explicit wishes of the patient, and the result is political posturing and a family fight.

This issue isn’t really euthanasia, where you take the life of something. It is allowing the life to fend for itself. The result will be the same in this case because she cannot fend for herself.

I agree with Diane when she says “if there is no chance for a “life,â€? extending it only serves to prolong the suffering and destroy the dignity of a patient.”

I urge all of you to get a living will so that your family is not in the same situation. (I’m not a lawyer, just someone who’s been close to a situation like this)

By Mara

March 14, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this

Hey Mary. Maybe the reason he won’t divorce her and let her parents take over her care is because he made a promise to her that he feels he has to keep. It would be far easier for him to abandon Terry and go on with his life. So why doesn’t he? Because he promised that he wouldn’t leave her with a life that is only prolonged by a machine. You gotta give him credit for his steadfast determination to complete what he believes she wanted, despite almost universal condemnation. I have to think that from the amount of effort he has gone to, and his refusal to divorce the woman he once shared a life with, he must indeed feel some sense of responsiblility to ensure that what she told him of her wishes was carried out.

By JohnR

March 14, 2005 10:36 AM | Link to this

Terry Schiavo is living(?) in a vegatative state. We don’t even know if she is aware that she’s even alive. We do know that without a feeding tube she will eventually starve to death. What sort of service does it do this woman to keep her alive? Shaunti’s intellectual dishonesty regarding this as both a feminist, and abortion issue smacks of the very simpleton attitude the right uses to rationalize it’s viewpoint. The husband has a mistress therefore he wants his wife dead, only a nefarious reason would suffice for his position.

Maybe he wants some peace in his life, having been her care taker for 15 years, maybe he knows more about what is best in this situation than Shaunti does. Everybody who opposes abortion, or euthanasa always assumes that both are done out of convinence rather than necessity. I would suggest that both issues cause considerable pain, anger and guilt for those who have to confront decisions that involve life and death.

We’d never consider keeping the family dog on a feeding tube because we wouldn’t want the dog to “suffer” why treat humans so badly?

By RS

March 14, 2005 10:43 AM | Link to this

Well, Jack, let’s hope you’re never, God forbid in that situation, but, yeah, I’d feel the same way. BTW, hope you two had a good time in my neck of the woods Friday night; I was thinking about you! You’re right, Mara. The man deserves more credit than condemnation. Think of the grief he’s been through too. PLUS, did you know he turned down an enormous amount of money that was ofered to him had he urned over the care of his wife to her parents? I know a lot of people are ripping on him for having a lady friend. OK, under ordinary circumstances, I find infidelity despicable, but these are hardly ordinary circumstances & I actually commend him for not wanting to divorce her, as her parents would become her legal gaurdians. We know they love her & mean the best for her, but Mr. S. desn’t want to see her condemned to perhaps, many more years of living death & gross indignity

By J. Morris

March 14, 2005 10:59 AM | Link to this

I did some research into this case over the weekend, and learned some interesting things. Did you know, for instance, that Mr. Schiavo did not make the decision to

Every court thus far has listened to extensive medical evidence and concluded that there is no possibility of higher brain function for Ms. Schiavo. Her cerebral cortex has deteriorated to the extent that the only point of contention among physicians is whether or not it is entirely gone, or whether some tiny amount of living tissue remains. These are the scientific facts of the case.

Schiavo’s parents, understandably, want to believe that the sounds she occasionally makes, and her seeming occasional reactions are cause by the presence of her personality, but everything - EVERYTHING, says that this isn’t the case. Of course, they listen to fringe doctors who claim they have some miraculous treatment that might help, but there is nothing to suggest that this is the case.

In making their decisions, the court used the highest burden of proof available for civil proceedings. Each time, the same conclusion was reached.

I grieve for all parties involved - I can only begin to imagine what an ordeal this has been for all of them. The championing of their cause by members of the Florida government is a shameful manipulation of the public’s emotion for political gain.

By lozen

March 14, 2005 11:19 AM | Link to this

If I were Terri S. I’d want them to let me go. Why are people so afraid of death? If she were my child, that would probably be a different story. Unfortunately most people don’t think about all the things like this that might happen and prepare by having living wills, etc. esp. when they’re young. even in old age so many people don’t want to deal with thoughts of their death. My father died suddenly when he was 85. He died without a will and left two pieces of property. We’ve spent thousands of dollars and many hours in attorney’s offices and in probate court, fought many family battles, and still haven’t resolved his estate although he died six years ago. I want to encourage everyone reading this to go to an attorney and make a will, a living will, and whatever needs to be done if you care about your children, your parents, your spouse, whoever you would leave behind.

By Brian Curtis

March 14, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this

Hey, at least this week’s topic has some actual relevance and value!

Shaunti has, of course, tried to drag religion into the issue (“all life is precious, which feminists can’t admit”), but of course that has nothing to do with this matter. In the absence of explicit consent or a living will, the decision of whether to maintain life support is up to the immediate family—in this case, her husband.

And as J. Morris noted, Mrs. Schiavo is dead. If the higher brain functions are gone with no hope of return, then the “person” no longer exists. It’s really nifty that we have cool technology that can keep the organs pumping and whirring along, but what’s the point? Terry Schiavo, the person, no longer exists. Time to acknowledge that fact, no matter how painful it may be, and move on.

By Tim

March 14, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this

well just in case anyone cared… here are my two cents

First, on the general subject of euthanasia… if someone is terminally ill and are in such an intense amount of pain that they just want to die I honestly don’t know who I am to tell them ‘no you must suffer’

Second, on the subject on Terri Schiavo… growing up in Florida I heard A LOT about this case… I truly feel for everyone involved… like many have said it is a shame she did not have a living will… I must say I do side with her husband though… there has been no improvement over the years… he being her caretaker must make those decisions… not her parents… no matter how hard that may be for them… I believe he knows what his wife wanted… and shame on Shaunti and others for making him out to be some aweful man? people have claimed that he is only after his wifes life insurance… I say if that were the case then why didn’t he just take the 1 million that the business man in California offered him (as RS mentioned)… it is a lot more money than he would get from the life insurance… I say it is because this isn’t about money… it is about what his wife wanted… unfortunately because she did not have a living will we are having this discussion

honestly if I were in a state like that of Mrs. Schiavo I would not want to be fed from a tube… take it out… if God really wants me to live then I hope He would teach me how to feed myself again!

By Jack

March 14, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this

This subject is exellent fodder for Zack and his ilk.

By lozen

March 14, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this

J, part of your message didn’t make it - please post it again. The first paragraph got cut off….

By J. Morris

March 14, 2005 11:50 AM | Link to this

It will be interesting to see how they address Shaunti’s “All life is precious and its morally wrong to permit humans to decide its end” argument. Does that extend to death row inmates, or to the victims of a war of choice? I suspect it doesn’t.

By Boscoe

March 14, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this

Water and food, even when administered artificially, are a natural means of preserving life, not a medical procedure. Therefore, their use must be considered ordinary and appropriate and as such, morally obligatory. The probability that there is little hope for recovery, when the vegetative state lasts longer than a year, cannot ethically justify abandoning or interrupting basic care, including food and hydration, of a patient. Death by starvation or dehydration carried out consciously or deliberately is truly euthanasia by omission. The moral principal according to which even the slightest doubt of being in the presence of a person who is alive requires full respect and prohibits any action that would anticipate his or her death. The value of the life of a man cannot be subjected to the judgement of quality expressed by other men; it is necessary to promote positive activities to counteract pressure for the suspension of food and hydration, as a means to putting an end to the life of these patients. If we continue on this path the aged will be put to death, the crippled will be put to death, the mentally ill will be eliminated. The value of life will be gone. The value for life will be destroyed.

By Lyrazel

March 14, 2005 12:02 PM | Link to this

Get a will. Young people seldom have wills. They have ‘all of life’ ahead of them and are reluctant to admit a situation such as this would ever happen to them. Even older people do not have mention of what their wishes if they become incapacitated would be…but leave explicit directions on who gets what teapot. Use this case as your example, folks…or some politician will use your infirmity to bandstand causes.

Never have been so disgusted in my life by mothers fathers husbands politicians and news media by coverage of what is tragic and private. Get out of her hospital bed and give her back whatever dignity a person in her condition can muster! I am ashamed…

By J. Morris

March 14, 2005 12:03 PM | Link to this

Boscoe’s quote is directly attributable to Pope John Paul II. Unsurprisingly. Equally unsurprisingly, he does not attribute the source, but would allow us to believe that the words are his own.

The slippery slope argument put forth here is just not valid. It is ludicrous to suggest that allowing a brain-dead woman to die would lead to us executing the elderly simply because they aren’t as spry as they once were. We’ve all seen Logan’s Run (or maybe we have) where everyone is systematically executed when they reach 30.

I do not believe that religion has any place in this argument. A body that lives and breathes is not a person - a person is the sum of his or her experiences, memories, those things that make an individual and individual - a soul, if you want to speak in spiritual terms. When that spark, soul, anima, whatever you want to call it is irretrievably gone, allowing the body to linger, with all of the associated emotional costs to family and friends is the cruelty.

There’s a reason that the Slippery Slope argument is considered a logical fallacy.

By Debora

March 14, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this

Well, yet another difference between me and Shaunti. I am not a selfish, judgemental person unlike Shaunti who is.

If I were in such a vegetative state I would want my Partner of many years to go on with her life in happiness. I love my Partner. I love her enough that her happiness is paramount to all other things. I am very sure she feels the same way. I would want my Partner to meet someone else (of course won’t find anybody near as great as me but that goes without saying). I would want my Partner to have a home and a new family. I know she would be sad that I can not be in that equation. I love her enough that I would never ask that she spend the remainder of her life changing my diaper and crying at my bedside.

Shaunti, I feel very sorry for your husband.

By Boscoe

March 14, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this

Yes Norman, you’re correct that is a quote directly from the Holy Father himself. I did not quote the source to save myself from your incessant drone about his Holiness, Catholics, and religious devotees in general.It does not make my point any less valid. If this execution comes to pass, the court, the lawyers, the American Civil Liberties Union and Michael Schiavo will be responsible for Terri’s death and also the deaths of others with cognitive disabilities who will be killed the same way as their families and lawyers use this case as precedent. Every living person, able or not, should be afraid. Very afraid. We’re all in danger from this immoral and illegal decision, which makes it easier for someone to decide who lives or dies, when, and under what conditions. If Terri were a prisoner on death row, condemned because of some horrible crime, this kind of death would not be allowed. It would be called cruel and unusual punishment, and people would be up in arms to halt it. They would be holding candlelight vigils and round-the-clock demonstrations to halt it. Many of those people are the same ones calling for the death of this innocent â€â€? and perhaps abused â€â€? woman.

By AllaboutME

March 14, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this

…bleah…how can a nation that allows a death penalty not justify euthenasia…it kills hundreds living breathing people…tagged them as criminals to justify morality of death penalty…with god on our side we drop megaton bombs on bagdad…justify the act as fighting terrorists…broad swathes of innocents are caught but thats acceptable in war….allow abortions…call them undeveloped fetuses but dont want to teach birth control because abstinance is more holy…but some white lady with a feeding tube gets this debate excuse for morality…give me a break…if she was a low-income minority jeb never would have made Terrys law because there is no prolonged maintenance of a patients life on medicaid…

By J. Morris

March 14, 2005 12:32 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, it does you no credit to call me Norman. I’m not Norman. And…no, your point is not valid. No one is executing this woman. The decision is made all the time, every day by people with living wills. The only difference is that Ms. Schiavo did not have such a will. The court made the determination based on copious testimony from both sides that Ms. Schiavo would have made the personal choice to die rather than persist as a vegetable.

Your attempt to turn this into some kind of immoral crusade that will lead to the deaths of thousands is absurd, uncritical, and completely lacking in substance. Like many religious-based arguments, you rely on simplicity to reach your decisions. You can’t, or just don’t want to, examine the specifics of a particular case and so you fall back on a pat answer.

And by the way - by definition the decision is legal. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it legal.

By J. Morris

March 14, 2005 12:34 PM | Link to this

Proof reading is your friend - the last word should be “illegal”

By Elaine

March 14, 2005 12:36 PM | Link to this

My dad was terminally ill from colon cancer 14 years ago. He was in terrible, terrible pain and didn’t hesitate to let anyone know about it. The pain meds helped to a point – they took his focus off the pain but scattered it so that he began hallucinating and undergoing very severe personality changes.

He was referred to Hospice and expected to live 2 weeks. He weighed 70 lbs. He surprised everyone by living an extra 4 months. After his tumor burst, it was a few more hours until he actually died, but the people closest to him had to assure him that it was okay to “let go.� He kept fighting, with tears in his eyes, right to his very last breath.

This was NOT a man who wanted to die. He was a man who wanted to rest, to not feel pain, to get a few lost years of his life back and do a few things over again. I’m sure there are plenty of people who would have been perfectly fine with sticking a needle into his arm and making it “go quickly.� But had those same people explicitly told him, “Yes the pain will stop, but it means you’re going to die,� he would have been up out of that bed, fighting still. Every time I read about a euthanasia case (Terri Schiavo’s being a prime example), I read between the lines and see relatives, doctors and “outside observers� thinking death is best, for a whole variety of reasons. Sure, it’s best for them. The instinct to live is so strong, I very much doubt there are that many people, even seriously ill, who really want to die. They just want the pain to stop. There is a difference.

By Jack

March 14, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this

How Boscoe thought J. Morris was Norman is beyand me. Norm took last week off probably from frustration.

By J. Morris

March 14, 2005 12:46 PM | Link to this

Elaine, you’re right - there is a critical difference in the two cases. Your father - please accept my sympathies - was aware. He chose to keep fighting because he still had all his faculties.

Ms. Schiavo is GONE. She is a shell with absolutely no higher brain function. There isn’t a chance she will ever recover…why should the body be preserved when the spirit within is gone?

We’re not really talking about Kevorkian-like euthanasia here…we’re talking about the rights of one husband (or actually in this case, a court acting as that husband’s surrogate) to make a decision to withdraw life-support from a brain-dead individual.

By corky

March 14, 2005 12:49 PM | Link to this

I agree with Diane. Modern medicine has prolonged the life of many sick people that do not have the quality of life. I am not suggesting to inject the woman with a leath inject to force her heart to stop or to cause her death. However, years ago she would have died. I say let people die with dignity. I know if I was in her place I would not want to be kept alive to cause suffering for my family.

By Zack

March 14, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this

Jack—First of all, I don’t appreciate your using the phrase, “…Zack and his ilk.”

Of course, my not appreciating this is not because you have any support for your little statement but rather because, as usual, you and your type (Whiley, Lozen, J. Morris) opt for personal insults and name-calling and childish whining, combined with sensationalist opinions, biases, prejudices, etc. over intelligent discussion and reason and wisdom. As for my not knowing reason and wisdom if it bit me, well, I’d expect that kind of statement from the lady who made it, and yeah, she’s the one who doesn’t know what they’re about.

Don’t you all love how these liberals just like to attack anyone who dares to differ with them and their insane thoughts? If you oppose abortion, they call you a woman- hater (they conveniently overlook how they’re child-haters. Woman-hater? That’s just stupid!!!) If you take their statements about there being male whores and mention how there are a ton of female whores, you’re called a woman-hater again. If you dare to stand up to their opinions, biases, prejudices, and whims wielding reason, they become scared and defensive, not to mention desperate. Instead of admitting that they’re wrong, they throw everything but the kitchen sink at you.

It’s frustrating to try to reason with people like this. Heck, the woman who Kobe “raped” (cough, cough), by all accounts, seems to be a man-chaser of the worst kind. Whiley and her type act like they don’t know this, which is a sign that they don’t even follow the stories that they claim to know about. Then they call Kobe a rapist, which hasn’t been proven, so apparently they don’t know the phrase, “…innocent until proven guilty.” Kobe hasn’t been proven guilty of rape, not even close.

If these people had it their way, those like me, who dare to stand up for equality, as opposed to their biased, propaganda-laced whims, would be shipped out of the country. You see? People like me are a threat to them and their agendas. Heck, I guess they’d want me to sit in the back of a bus and drink from a separate water fountain as well.

As for euthanasia, it’s wrong. It’s murder. Like abortion, people can throw all the excuses in the world into the mix, but that doesn’t make anything right. (Did you all see the statement by Shaunti Feldhahn about 25% of these cases NOT being approved??? THIS is EXACTLY the sort of factual evidence that liberals love to ignore. As Rush Limbaugh once said, it’s hard to communicate with those on the left when you use reason.)

As I said, there’s nothing for ME to be offended about. I’m <—— not the one who defends legalized murder, double standards all over society, the lying, conniving, fraudulent Martha Stewart, etc.. I guess you all defend Michael Jackson also. Heck, most of you, as I recall, have defended porn, so I guess you would.

By norman

March 14, 2005 01:22 PM | Link to this

Boscoe: that post was not by me. You seem to think I am the only one who can quote the Pope. I try to stay away from discussions of abortion and/or euthenasia not only because they are painful subjects but because they attract hypocrites galore. I don’t trust any religious person talking about abortion or euthenasia because I know it is only an opportunity to go on ad infinitum about their religious manias. They don’t give a fig for the suffering of foetuses or terminally ill patients; they care only for an opportunity to damn those who are secularist, liberal, moderate, or even unconfrontationally conservative. I notice Boscoe did not lose any time getting into the act. I suspect Randy and Zack will be along any minute, perhaps as soon as they put away their firewood for the next auto da fe.

Yes, the Catholic church is so concerned with the sanctity of human life that the Slovak regime under Monsignor Tiso during WWII was the only Hitlerite satellite constantly to bombard the Germans to take the Slovak Jews off their hands as quickly as possible. The Fascist Catholic state of Slovakia was the only example of this.

I am sure Boscoe can find soame extenuating circumstance in 14th Century Catalonia.

By norman

March 14, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this

The ilk is back!

By Johnny

March 14, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this

One word for Zack-“ilk”

By Jack

March 14, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this

Bad news for you Zack. I am NOT a liberal. I do not mind being grouped with Whiley, Lozen, J. Morris or any of the other folks on this blog who show some sense in their arguements. Going forward I will refrain from using ilk. How about crew or kind?

By Brian Curtis

March 14, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this

Zack, thanks for finally getting around to the topic—although your argument again seems to consist of repeated assertions—“It’s wrong, it’ll always be wrong, and arguing will never change that.” That’s hardly an ironclad exercise of logic there.

And if you’re a conservative, then you DO actually defend legalized murder all the time, in the form of the death penalty and unjust wars. It all depends on how you spin the word “murder,” as you well know. And were you paying attention to last week’s discussion? I didn’t see all the “liberals” lining up to defend Martha Stewart.

And yes, Michael Jackson does deserve a defense, as every accused citizen does. It’s called the right to a fair trial, and it’s one of our proudest American traditions.

But I guess a conservative doesn’t mind being anti-American if it lets him indulge his prejudice and hate. (Apologies to any REAL conservatives who may be reading this—don’t let Zack give you a bad name!)

By Zack

March 14, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis—Actually, I normally do stay on topic.

Why don’t you put the proverbial shoe on your foot? The Bible says murder is wrong. Euthanasia, no matter how many excuses we make for it, is still murder. Period.

You say that my belief in absolute truth is hard to comprehend. Oh, really? Actually, believing in absolute truth and putting those principles into action is quite simple (although not necessarily easy). What’s insanely complex is believing the myth that truth changes over time, which you imply. This raises the questions of, “What exactly constitutes a standard for a change in truth?”, and “At what rate of speed does truth change?” All this has to be considered, along with a slew of other questions, if relativism is indeed to be accepted.

As for Michael Jackson, I never said the man didn’t deserve a fair trial and wouldn’t say that about anyone. You just put a statement in my mouth. I just get frustrated by these people on here who defend Martha Stewart, someone who should be in jail for life, who was in a luxury hotel for three months. (I guess they believe those with money shouldn’t receive the same punishment of Joe Taxpayer.)

Abortion and euthanasia: Two examples of man trying to play God. WE don’t have the right to kill someone we THINK needs to die.

By Boscoe

March 14, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this

SOURCE CNN — , To write his report, Dr.Wolfson, Schiavo’s court-appointed legal advocate, reviewed all of the court records and previous testimony in the case. He also visited with Schiavo at the hospice where she is staying in Pinellas Park. Wolfson was not allowed to do any further investigation into the case. Dr. Wolfson, also recommended that “swallowing tests” be performed on Schiavo, tests her husband opposes because he says they were done several years ago and showed she could not swallow. Her parents believe that with swallow therapy, Schiavo could be taught to eat again, eliminating the need for the feeding tube. In Wolfson’s report, the doctor said part of his job was to “deduce and represent the best wishes and best interests of” Schiavo, but he said no recommendations can be made “until and unless there are changes in the status quo among the parties.” He also described a “platform for proceeding” reached between the parties that apparently fell apart at the last minute. That agreement would have allowed Wolfson to remain guardian ad litem and would have allowed the swallow testing to take place, performed by doctors of Wolfson’s choosing. However, talks between the parties — the guardian ad litem, Michael Schiavo, the Schindlers, and the governor’s office — broke down and the agreement was not adopted.. What you have done here is eliminate reasonable doubt. The court refuses the court appointed doctor’s recommendations and picks and chooses what parts of it are valid and rules on only those acoordingly. This is an execution. This woman would not die unless you remove that tude, then by removing it you are sentencing her to death. News articles have recently characterized Terri’s situation by saying that some want to “keep her alive against her husband’s wishes. Clearly Micheal Schiavo is doing everything he can to make sure this woman dies! There is no written evidence suggesting Terri would want to die. NONE! It is called starvation. If the courts permit that to happen, then why should that permission apply only in Terri’s case? There would be no way to limit it to her case alone. Countless others would follow, and their deaths would be described as “letting them die” instead of “killing them.” *Where, indeed, does the state get the authority to starve people? *

By Whiley

March 14, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this

You have your shackles on right Zack? (the safety of the public must be a priority)

(Hey Zack !….Kobe is a rapist !) I”ll bet you think the Atlanta Shooter was being framed too. See how you would like HIM as a cell mate.

OK back on topic. This case is really tough. You’d have to lethally put her to rest, or let her starve. I would want lethal injection.
I would hate to think that deep down she knows exactly what’s going on around her & has been trapped for all these years in that body.

By JohnR

March 14, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this

Who’s talking about lethal injection euthanasia besides Shaunti? (Besides which happened in Holland not the good ol’ USA.)Only a dittohead would understand selective truth. What is exactly moral about keeping something that cannot live alive by artifical means? First of all it doesn’t make any sense, secondly it is done selfishly, and finally it is messin’ with the natural order of things (which I think you christian folk refer to as “God”)people have a right to die particularly if their bodies can no longer function. Who are you to say otherwise?

By Boscoe

March 14, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

What is exactly moral about keeping something that cannot live alive by artifical means? Putting food into somebody is artificial means? Do you suggest that anybody who has an IV during an operation should have it removed? Who are you to say they should die?

By Zack

March 14, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

Whiley—The man who performed the killings in the courtroom committed a terrible crime. Unfortunately, there are people out there like you who influence such behavior.

You really do.

You defend murder in the form of abortion, euthanasia, etc., which influences confusion in others, and suddenly someone kills people in a courtroom. What’s sad is that the type of mentality he had is really no different than YOURS. Both of you apparently believe in subjective interpretations of “Thou shalt not murder.”

Yeah, you can sit back and throw all your desperate insults at me, which you’ve suddenly started doing over the past couple of weeks, but it won’t change the fact that what I’ve said about you is true. You and the courtroom murderer do have the same type of mentality.

Also, again, Kobe isn’t a rapist. Please stick to due process of law as opposed to your aforementioned whims, biases, prejudices, and just outright lies.

Good day.

By Jack

March 14, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this

OK Zack. If you were on a plane that was in trouble and the passengers were you and 3 females. The pilot comes on and says “Someone will have to jump from the plane to save the others because there is too much weight on the plane”. Would you jump knowing that it would be certain death for you? Or would you consider that as suicide and not jump?

By lozen

March 14, 2005 01:58 PM | Link to this

god put that tube down Terri’s throat and it cannot be taken out unless he takes it out himself!

By Whiley

March 14, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this

Kobe isn’t a rapist??? HAHAHA HA HA HA H AH!!!!

Pro-choicers are responsible for the Atlanta Shooter?????

HAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAAAAAA !

I’ll remember what you said when you are trapped in a hospital bed in pain & have no way to communicate to anyone to put you out of your misery. Lets say, shall we let you live 15 years in that prison of suffering? But hey, life is so precious, you’ll have to just suffer.

Hey Jack, Zacks answer would be simple. He’d push all the women off the plane, while calling them whores as he pushed.

By Jack

March 14, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this

If Lozen made that last post I’ll eat my hat.

By J. Morris

March 14, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this

I wonder at the sanity of anyone who would suggest that believing that allowing someone who is brain-dead to die and committing the wilful and brutal murder of four sentient human beings indicates the same mindset.

By JohnR

March 14, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this

Yeah, I’d say force feeding a body to keep it alive certainly is artificial means, and IV’s used in operations is a completely different issue. All I know for sure is that she will die without the artificial means of keeping her body alive.

By J. Morris

March 14, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

Methinks the lady may have been writing with her tongue in her cheek, Jack…

By Lee

March 14, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

Shaunti says “in Holland, where lethal-injection euthanasia was legalized out of misguided compassion, a government study found that ONE-QUARTER of all euthanasia deaths occurred without the patient’s express permission! “

Does this mean they didn’t have a living will? Is the patient able to give express permission or are they in such pain/incommunicable state that they cannot even sign a paper?

Also she says “And in fact, her incapacitation is not as profound as earlier believed: she has intermittent levels of purposeful interaction. ”

By whose standards? If you wave and say “hi” to a leaf, and suddenly, it jumps in the breeze, do you say that the leaf has purposeful interaction? As far as I have researched, Terri does sometimes move, but randomly and not in awareness to her surroundings.

Diane says “The Schiavo case is complex because no one really knows what Terri wants. But if we did, would it matter? ”

Of course it would! If she explicitly said “please let me live for 20 years even if I cannot do or say anything” then by all means, those are her wishes, keep her alive. If she explicitly said “Let me die if I do not recover in 2 years”, then that would be her wish, and the treatment could discontinue after 2 years. Of course, courts would need this in a signed statement before the events occured.

Both sides need to view this case as separate from other issues. Plus, I’d like to know. Do Diane or Shaunti have a living will that explicitly says what their wishes are in a similar situation?

Mine says that if I am not able to communicate my wishes in 3 months and 3 days then it is okay to remove the means keeping me alive.

By lozen

March 14, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this

It was me Jack, tongue planted firmly in cheek. Did you enjoy the play?

By Zack

March 14, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this

Whiley—Well, the only thing positive about your posts so far is that you just proved everything I said about you beforehand.

I hate women? Man, you’re really something. Kobe’s a rapist? Again, where’s the evidence? There IS none, just like there’s no support for anything else you say.

Sounds like you hate men. Sounds also like you hate anyone who disagrees with you. I’d sure appreciate it if you’d once—just once—make reasonable statements as opposed to your typical sensationalism and name-calling.

Please don’t hate Kobe because he’s a man. Please don’t hate me because I’m a man. Please don’t accuse people of hating you because they disagree with you. If you’re not careful, you might soon start believing your own rhetoric.

By Jack

March 14, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this

The play was ok. A bit weepy for me. Had lots of fun down there. Lots of food, drink and people watching.

By J. Morris

March 14, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this

I prefer farce, Jack. Good thing we’ve got that, too…

By Jack

March 14, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

Well what about it Zack? Jump or Push?

By J. Morris

March 14, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this

Jack, you didn’t give Zack enough information to make a decision. Were any of the women gay, non-christian, non-virginal, non-American, or in any other way unnacceptable to God and Zack? We all know that his much-vaunted “perfect love” doesn’t apply to most people.

By Whiley

March 14, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this

I don’t hate Kobe because he’s a man, I hate him because he is a lying cheating rapist. I don’t hate you because you are a man, I do not like anything you say concerning women. I don’t like you because you are anti-choice (so easy for a guy to decide that one). I don’t like you because I’m afraid you could one day be on a jury. You’d probably side with the Atlanta Shooter. Everything you say shows how much you hate women, so I don’t like anything about you. I don’t hate anyone that disagrees with me. I hate dangerous people with dangerous views. So I very much dislike bible freaks.
Now have a nice day.

By Sandy

March 14, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this

Shaunti says that it is wrong for humans to decide life’s end; could it also be wrong for humans to decide when life begins?

All this talk about slippery slopes coming from anti-abortion folks begs the question: If abortion rights are rolled back in some states but not others, could you prevent a pregnant woman from crossing state lines under mere suspicion that she might seek abortion? And if you can’t tell if she pregnant, could you stop any woman from crossing state lines, or subject her to pregnancy tests? If she miscarries, is she to be subjected to a murder investigation? I used to think this was far-fetched and out of the realm of possibility, but then I thought the same thing about the PATRIOT Act.

In the Roe vs. Wade decision, the government is said to have an interest in the fetus. One would assume that this would mean concern for what happens to it. Shouldn’t the government therefore be morally responsible to help provide for said fetus after it is born? A bit of support to families would provide real values to a morally impoverished society.

I suspect that our assumed creator’s omniscience would prevent assignment of a soul to an unwanted and unborn child.

By J. Morris

March 14, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this

Oh, now you’ve done it…let the frothing at the mouth begin…

By Whiley

March 14, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

Great. The Govt decides when & how we are born & how we will die. Great.

By Brian Curtis

March 14, 2005 02:50 PM | Link to this

Zack, I can see you’re trying to stay on topic, but you haven’t provided any arguments yet.

quote: “The Bible says murder is wrong. Euthanasia, no matter how many excuses we make for it, is still murder. Period.”

I questioned your fondness for that interpretation when I asked if you approve of the Iraq War (murder) and the death penalty (again, murder). For that matter, would you kill in self-defense (likewise murder)? Or is that the point when you start dragging in exceptions and redefining the word to deny that “murder” is happening in those cases… but you’re still 100% certain that abortion and euthanasia qualify?

So let’s hear it! Your argument consists of saying “The Bible says murder is wrong.” Fine and dandy; so what’s murder, and what isn’t? Self-defense? Warfare? Abortion? Suicide? Execution? Spell it out for us, if you please… and then explain how you parsed your logic to arrive at those definitions.

We’re all waiting with bated breath.

By Jack

March 14, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this

You may have him Brian.

By Whiley

March 14, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this

Brian it’s pointless to argue with Zack concerning abortion rights. Impossible. You can’t talk to a brickwall, fruitcake, religious fanatic.

I’ll tell you what, I’ve told my children & everyone that will listen that NO ONE is allowed to keep my comatose body alive more than 4 months. Who said that they would haunt those who tried to prolong their lives? HA HA I love that.

By Jack

March 14, 2005 03:01 PM | Link to this

I said it and I would!

By Zack

March 14, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this

Whiley—Yet again, you say Kobe’s a rapist. Yet again, I’m going to refute you: YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE.

You hate everything about me, huh? I don’t care. Someone with your confused and unwise nature would offend me by agreeing with me.

Brian Curtis—When the Bible speaks against killing, it is speaking to individuals, not governments. Part of the government’s job is to execute killings of people like Timothy McVeigh. As for war, the Bible also grants governments the right to defend their countries.

Now, this leads to the topic of just vs. unjust wars, but I won’t elaborate here due to time constraints and because I think my point has been made anyway. For the record, do I consider the war in Iraq a just war? Not really. If Bush really thought we were a target of Saddam Hussein, that’d be one thing, but I think we’re there just out of greed.

Having said this, even if the war in Iraq is unjust, it still is not as wrong as abortion. Abortion is simply an outright war on the innocent and defenseless unborn.

Euthanasia, like abortion, has seen many proponents try to sugarcoat it with as many excuses and as much glitter as possible, but it’s NOT up to the individual to decide when life ends. God gives us each life, and it’s not up to us to terminate it or put unnecessary strain on another individual or impede another individual’s freedom in any way.

Whiley says with disgust that the government is going to decide about life, obviously her way of saying she’s upset because she’s worried about abortion “rights.” She doesn’t get it. EVERYONE deserves the right to be born. In other words, the gift of life wasn’t meant to go to a few, select people at a country club.

By Jack

March 14, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this

Poor Zack. Bless your heart.

By J. Morris

March 14, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this

None of the people who are claiming that euthenasia is murder seem to consider the wishes of the people who want to be euthanized. They presume some sort of moral superiority over those people (all fundamentalists assume they are morally superior, though, right?). GOD wants to you live on in your miserable state.

Sorry, but for some people, QUALITY of life far outstripps quantity. Both my parents have threatened me and my sisters to within an inch of our lives if we ever try to extend their lives if they lack their basic cognitive abilities. For them, a life spent unable to read or hear music or think isn’t a life WORTH living.

However, the religious right has the nerve to claim to speak for God and tell them that they should be hooked up to machines whether the want to be or not. Lord, what fools these mortals be.

By mit

March 14, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this

this is a tough question with an easy answer.

i don’t understand the murder charge for euthanasia. without modern technology terri would have been dead long ago, so how is that murder?

if the family pet was in the exact same position no one on this forum would even think twice to putting their pet to sleep. this is thought of as humane treatment (i agree) and its inhumane for this same pet to just be kept in the home to breath its last breath. The exact opposite is true for us and that doesn’t make any sense.

shaunti makes agreements with no back up. 1/4 of euthansia is forced, oh come on.

By Zack

March 14, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this

Jack—No, bless YOUR heart, my friend.

J. Morris—Again, you’re taking “Thou shalt not murder” and are putting your own spin on it. If there’s one thing we don’t need more of in today’s society, it’s more spin (notice how it rhymes with “more sin”?).

I understand that many might mean well when they favor euthanasia, but meaning well doesn’t mean one is doing the right thing in the process. There’s a saying that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

I don’t want to spend a free afternoon on the computer. I’ll look for you all tomorrow or Wednesday. Have a good one.

By Whiley

March 14, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this

How many children are currently in foster care in this country?

I say let all the anti choice anti birth control fanatics pay for all these unwanted kids.

What kind of person could just sit by & do nothing to help ease the pain of a terminally ill person who wants to go in peace?

By J. Morris

March 14, 2005 03:20 PM | Link to this

And there you have it, Brian! Zack’s “version” of immutable truth.

By lozen

March 14, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

Now let me see if I get this straight… it is worse to have an abortion than it is to pick up a gun, get on a plane, go to Iraq and shoot innocent pregnant women, already born children, etc. because the bible is speaking to individuals and not governments? I thought the government was a collective of we the citizens and represented you, me and all individuals — stupid me!

By J. Morris

March 14, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this

Lol - Did Zack just accuse me of putting my own “spin” on Thou Shalt Not Kill and then rhyme it with “sin”?

That may be the funniest thing ever!

By Brian Curtis

March 14, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this

Interesting. So murder is okay if the government does it. I notice Zack didn’t comment on suicide or self-defense, two other situations where an individual chooses to kill a human being, but I’d bet he doesn’t consider those “murder” either. Why not?

The abortion argument is a red herring anyway, since a fetus isn’t a person… I was just curious how Zack would interpret the other breaches of “thou shalt not kill” that so many conservatives seem okay with.

By J. Morris

March 14, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this

I don’t think that an herring is a big enough fish to describe the fallacious association that Zack between every single topic and abortion.

Is there a red whale?

By chuck

March 14, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this

JMorris, You Said: It is ludicrous to suggest that allowing a brain-dead woman to die would lead to us executing the elderly simply because they aren’t as spry as they once were. This is not allowing her to die it is causing her to die. Boscoe is correct, regardless of the source. We are obligated to give basic care to medical patients despite their condition. Machines for respiration can be unhooked. That is allowing a patient to die. Withholding food and hydration is different. Should a hospital withhold food and water from all patients who are unable to feed themselves? How about this situation. Wife is paralyzed from the neck down and cannot speak. Husband decides that he no longer wants the hospital to give her food or water. There is evidence of brain activity in the Schiavo case. Even if there was no such activity, it would be wrong to starve her to death.

By J. Morris

March 14, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this

Chuck, you are incorrect - there is no evidence of higher brain function in the Schiavo case. Each time the court has heard this case, they have examined all medical evidence with a fine-toothed comb. Surely you don’t believe that the decision to withdraw life support was made casually?

Are there impulses from the nervous system? Of course - if not the lungs would cease to inhale and exhale, the heart cease to beat, etc. However, nothing that indicates conscious thought exists. There is no person to keep alive - only a shell that houses organs that continue to function to one degree or another.

Also, your hypothetical case is a false comparison. The woman you describe retains her cognitive functions. It is not the innability to speak that determines this - our means of determination are far more advanced now. The two cases are not remotely similar. It wouldn’t even be the husband’s choice - it would be hers. The situations simply don’t compare.

And I still have not heard an argument as to WHY we are obligated to give basic care to a body that will never again house a functioning, thinking human being. WHY are we obligated to provide food and water to a living, breathing corpse? WHY is it more compassionate to continue to allow the family of the brain dead victim to remain in the tragic limbo between grief and acceptance? By forcing Ms. Schiavo’s body to remain alive, the State of Florida is denying her family what it needs - the chance to grieve, accept her death, and move on with their lives.

Which is more compassionate?

By Jack

March 14, 2005 04:09 PM | Link to this

Her husband said her wishes before the accident was that she did not want to live that way. She had no will living or otherwise. The courts should respect HER wishes and not that of her parents. Her parents were not there when she stated her desires. They aren’t married to her, they are in denial and should stay out of it.

By Jack

March 14, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this

After much discussion with my spouse I’m afraid I would go to jail because I would make sure her wishes were carried out despite what the law says.

By Michael

March 14, 2005 04:28 PM | Link to this

This case has echos in a lot of areas. Here in Houston, we have a baby that has a terminal dwarfism syndrome with no treatment possible.

Under Texas law, the hospital’s ethics committee can order cessation of treatment over the wishes of the family — but the family has the right to appeal and move the patient to another facility… if they can find one.

Is it a hard decision? Of course. But it seems like the best way to make an ethical choice to stop the prolonged suffering.

What is disturbing in the Schiavo case has been the lengths to which the parents, so-called right-to-life groups, evangelicals and the state government have gone to thwart the wishes of the husband (and presumably the wife.)

They’ve looked for ways to annul the marriage — or get the husband divorced from her. They’ve argued that the spouse has no rights in this case — because he’s making a choice that they disagree with. (Odd that the same groups screaming about the sanctity of marriage and wives submitting to their husbands is so eager to toss that out in this case.)

The new legislative initiative is aimed so broadly, that it will likely mean that noone’s Living Will will be seen as the binding wishes of the patient. (I doubt that even if this person had filed a Living Will that the parents would abide by it.)

Moral of the story: even if you think your family is protected by the law or legally-binding documents — it’s not. This is something that gay and lesbian families know all too well.

By norman

March 14, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this

You can no more trust an evangelical than a communist. A commitment to an ideology determines the rules of right and wrong and no one on the outside of the magic circle counts.

By Randy

March 14, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this

Once again this is man’s attempt to play God. This is not our decision to make(life or death), read the instructions(Bible). God has a reason for these people being kept alive, I for one am not going to mess with his overall plan.

By J. Morris

March 14, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

Randy, I just don’t believe that God micromanages the lives of every single individual on the planet. I don’t believe that there is a “purpose” to human suffering or a “purpose” in one person dying and another living.

When DON’T we play God in one way or another? Take your statement to the extreme and you find yourself in one of those sects that refuse any medical treatment. How do you rationalize making decision X and not decision Y?

We have free will. We are not puppets moved around for the amusement of a divine voyeur.

By Michael

March 14, 2005 05:06 PM | Link to this

Um… Randy, if you read “the instructions (Bible)” as you say, then a whole lot of people would miss out on medical treatment in favor of sacrifice, stoning, or becoming outcast as unclean. Levitical law is pretty explicit.

It wasn’t too long ago that surgery on the heart was considered against G*d’s will…

By Lyrazel

March 15, 2005 07:47 AM | Link to this

Can I correct something for people? It is the use: lethal injection. Shaunti was erroneous about such being used, especially in Hospice situations of very infirm and elderly patients whether in Amsterdam or in America. More often than not needles are only used on living cognizant patients, as in prisons. Her phrase was to drive sentiment toward her side by suggesting that terminally ill patients are subjected to prisoner termination. It is gross misapplication of the truth. Its disgusting.

When my father was alive he had parkinsons and altzhimers and lived at a care center and as his illnesses compounded with pneumonia he was moved to a Hospice according to his living will. Prolonging dying was not my fathers wishes. While he was in Hospice care he lost total function of his mind and body. He was not injected but given morphine suppositories that slowly released into his bloodstream enough medication to make his final hours peaceful, restful. The family gathered to watch him pass, we said our good byes, it was private, dignified for he was finally without pain. He died peacefully, we all were there.

Now, I have read comments and am really curious why no one raged against AllaboutME who mentioned if Terry had been poor there would never have been a question of prolonged life. That fact gets more dreadful the more this argument is dragged out for it shows how euthenasia is already practiced by cost-efficient hospitals run as a business. Why would Shaunti not admit this fact/fallacy to an argument for life? Is it less a sin to kill someone without insurance than one with full medical coverage? Obviously the government and big business hospitals think so.

Ok, I had my second rant is done. Go on with your bible study…

By Jack

March 15, 2005 09:58 AM | Link to this

My father died back in the early 70’s. he quit breathing just long enough to take awawy all brain activity. He was on a respirator. At that time doctors didn’t pull the plug until the heart stopped. His heart lasted for 72 hours before he finally died. Zack, tell me what use God had for that extra 72 hours. Was it to make sure my mother and siblings had plenty of time to pray that he died? Thank God you are not in charge of things.

By norman

March 15, 2005 10:05 AM | Link to this

Those of you appalled by people like Zack who glory in suffering for God don’t really get it. Christianity is fundamentally sado-masochistic. Suffering is good because it is bad. Precisely.

By chuck

March 15, 2005 10:08 AM | Link to this

JMorris, 2 weeks ago I held my Father’s hand as he took his last breath in a hospice facility. He was there for about a week and could not respond to us for the last 2 days of his life. He chose to put into place a do not rescusitate order when he went in. Because his lungs were filled with fluids, he could not take in either fluids or nourishment after his first day there. I have real experience in this area and it is not fun. Would it have been easier on us if someone had taken active steps to end his life? NO. We would have wondered for the rest of our time on earth if there was something else we could have done to keep him alive. Was it easy seeing my Dad in that condition? No. But I am not God. There is no doctor or anyone else(Especially you JMorris) who can say with certainty that she will not recover. Starving her to death is not allowing her to die with dignity, it is killing her. Children can’t feed themselves, WE HAVE TO DO IT. Failure to feed children in our care, resulting in death of those children, is not benign, it is criminal. For a hospital or other medical facility to withhold nourishment and hydration is criminal. I don’t understand how you liberals fail to see the hypocrisy. You will scream to protect the life of a filthy degenerate murderer, but scream just as shrilly to kill an innocent woman. I am not saying we should take HEROIC measures to keep this woman alive, but we certainly should not take active measures to kill her.

By norman

March 15, 2005 10:09 AM | Link to this

Now that that fella in Wisconsin has killed eight people including himself because of what his pastor said about the coming end of the world, we might need to think about whether clergy should be held responsible for the irresponsible things they say in the pulpit. I for one would want them shut up good!

By chuck

March 15, 2005 10:14 AM | Link to this

BTW, Morris,

If as you say she is in a persistent vegetative state with no brain activity…how is SHE suffering? Her unfaithful husband may be suffering…good…but her FAMILY wants her to be fed.

By Vincent

March 15, 2005 10:17 AM | Link to this

I think euthanasia should be legalized, but legalized the same fashion our current government sees fit:

1) Only euthanasia for homosexuals (especially the loud ones who insist to be married)

2) Democrats

3) SpongeBob Squarepants

4) Janet Jackson’s nipple

5) Any evil doer

By Jack

March 15, 2005 10:39 AM | Link to this

Norman - You’re too far out there for me to argue with.

By norman

March 15, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this

JaCK: CONSCIENCE DOTH MAKE COWARDS OF US ALL.

By chuck

March 15, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this

Norman, Being UNCONSCIOUS makes you irrelevant to this and all other conversations.

By lozen

March 15, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this

There is no god making decisions about our life and death. We either take responsibility and make those decisions or we don’t. Man plays god constantly by creating his god in his own image. It’s so easy to see how each of us creates our own god. It will be a great day when humans grow up and take responsibility for our actions instead of pretending some invisible old man in the sky is responsible. Then these people who jump behind god’s skirt with every debate - “it’s not me who says that; it’s god!” will have to stop!

By Jack

March 15, 2005 11:12 AM | Link to this

If science were to prove religion wrong you know it would be labeled blasphemy regardless of the proof.

By J. Morris

March 15, 2005 11:16 AM | Link to this

Chuck, there is no call for you to be rude or uncivil - no one has been rude or uncivil to you this week. Calling me shrill, or using “you liberals” just serves to obfuscate the discussion. I hope that you can respond in the future without falling back on the old habits that we’re trying to shed on this blog.

I’m sorry for your loss, truly. I notice you say your father chose to have a DNR - the issue before the court in this case was whether or not Ms. Schiavo would have chosen for herself, given the choice, to be kept alive in the fashion that she is being kept alive. The court ruled after long and careful consideration that she would have chosen not to continue as she is. What is being done is no different that what happens over and over again in this country when someone with a living will is allowed to die.

Your attempt to confuse matters by comparing the current situation to that of feeding a child is a poor argument. It’s an emotional plea with no validity - a child is a thinking, sentient being who will grow into a thinking, sentient being. Ms. Schiavo will not ever improve - ever.

Yes, Chuck, doctors CAN make that determination. I realize that you are a committed anti-intellectual who refuses to acknowledge intellectual or educational authority. I’m sure you think that your opinion on Ms. Schiavo’s medical condition is as good as any doctor’s. But Chuck, if you read the medical reports from the trials, you will see that numerous doctors have testified that in their EXPERT opinion, there is no chance of recovery. The parts of her brain that control higher thought are GONE, Chuck. GONE.

If medical science continues to evolve as it has, and the technology becomes available to keep just a head alive, without the body, would you be equally as rabid about keeping that head alive?

By norman

March 15, 2005 11:44 AM | Link to this

Chuck: you Christians should have your feeding tubes cut.

By chuck

March 15, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this

So I guess “shrill” is worse than “anti-intellectual? I’m sure you’ve been pouring over those transcripts of the trial so that you, JMORRIS aka God, Jr. can decide for all of us poor uneducated slobs what is right for this woman in Florida that you’ve met, how many times? It seems to me that your brand of disengenuous, knee-jerk, PSEUDO-INTELLECTUALISM is much worse than my supposed “anti-intellectual” stance on the issue.

I realize that you are a committed “I know everything and therefore I am superior” ist, but I think I’ll stick with my common sense over your Napoleon complex. If you cannot understand the difference between allowing someone to die and actively taking steps to insure that someone dies, then you really don’t belong in this discussion.

I understand there is a good fashion discussion going on in the “Living” section blog. Maybe you should check that out.

AND, BTW, if you think ANYBODY on this blog believes that you have read the legal/medical transcripts of the case, you really are nuts. If you are as intellectual as you say you are, then you should make it a point to be intellectually honest in this discussion.

By mit

March 15, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this

jack,

science already proved religion wrong way back when copernicus (sp?) showed that the earth revovled around the sun instead of the earth at the center of the universe.

his theory was banned by the catholic church, i guess it still is, they just recently apologized for galileo who proved the same thing.

when the church has to change the way it thinks based on proven science, then its a sham.

By Jack

March 15, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this

Would you want to be kept alive Chuck?

By Whiley

March 15, 2005 01:48 PM | Link to this

EXCELLENT back to religion! I love fairy tales ! Can’t wait for the next Harry Potter movie.

Letter to my family: If I am a vegetable with no chance of improving, & the state or any right to life group tries to keep my body alive in the name of Jesus, please do the following:

When no one is looking, smother me with a pillow. I promise you’ll be one of the people I will NOT haunt viciously for the next 20 years.

By J. Morris

March 15, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

Hey, Chuck’s back to name calling again.

First, while I have certainly not read all the court transcripts, I have located and read the relevant legal summaries. These are available, you know.

Second, my stance is neither knee-jerk nor disingenous. Just because my position is not informed by errant superstition does not make me a pseudo-intellectual.

Third - if YOU don’t understand that shoving a tube down the throat of a living corpse and forcing food down it for 15 years when there is absolutely no brain function left in said corpse is taking EXTREME measures, then YOU don’t belong in this discussion.

Oh..and was the fashion thing another gay joke, you bigoted redneck? Because, really - if you think that all gay men meet the Queer Eye stereotype, you’re even stupider than I think you are.

By mit

March 15, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this

is there any gay men who watch queer eye?

i would say its a majority of heterosexual men watching with their wives.

By Jack

March 15, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this

If my wife wanted to watch that she could. I would just leave the room. Yuck! I don’t watch reality shows or Idol either tis all drivel.

By Coach

March 15, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this

With some of the responses some of the non-Christians have entered on this forum. I guess, they are glad that Brian Nichols(the guy who murdered 4 people on friday) didn’t break into their place of residence. I can here them now, talking to Mr. Nichols, there is no hope, there is no purpose to life, everything we know(the whole universe) appeared out of thin air without the help of a creator in the beginning, there is no forgiveness, really life is pointless. I’m glad he broke into a Christians apt and she quoted him the bible and “The Purpose Driven Life” book by Rick Warren. Or there would probably be many more dead people and all you non-Christians(if he broke into your apt) would be among them. She was truly an angel sent by Jesus.

By J. Morris

March 15, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

Thank you Coach, for yet another pointless, rambling piece of garbage. At least you didn’t tell us about your bloody damned team again.

By Jack

March 15, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this

“Coach” Why do you and others in Zack’s crew profess to know what people are going to say or think? Do you have special powers granted by God?

By Lee

March 15, 2005 02:50 PM | Link to this

How many of you have a living will or advance directive? ‘

Would it say that you want to be kept alive forever and ever in every single condition?

Would it say that you want a “do not rescuscitate” (that how you spell it?) order so that you die naturally when unconscious?

What do YOU want to happen when you are no longer able to communicate your wishes?

By mit

March 15, 2005 02:53 PM | Link to this

coach, generalization is not a good approach to make a statement with.

you don’t know if that would be the case, you just think it is. i have seen many criminals talked out of doing other crimes without using the bible. watch cops on fx, they do it all the time.

in reality, smith said herself that he told her he didn’t want to hurt anybody else. so, therefore he talked hisself out of it. she talked him into surrendering using so religious book. she stayed calm therefore she stayed alive. if religion helped her through it great for her. but no matter how religious she was if she would have went into a panic things probably would have turned out differently.

By lindemans

March 15, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this

Who wants to bet that Coach and Randy are the same person?

By lozen

March 15, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this

Coach, don’t pride yourself on having the truth, being able to read, or being able to spell! (And we know you’re really Zack!)

By mit

March 15, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this

coach, generalization isn’t a good approach to an argument.

smith said herself he told her he didn’t want to hurt anyboby else. she talked him in to surrendering.

no matter what religion she was or wasn’t, if she would have not stayed calm and went into a panic things would have turned out differently. she is alive today because she was calm. that’s it. watch cops on fx, they talk people out of doing more crimes all the time without using any biblical references.

the key is to stay calm, not your religious affliation

By J. Morris

March 15, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this

Well, we know that only Christians - and evangelical fundamentalist ones at that - have purpose. The rest of the world (all 3+ billion people who AREN’T Christian) are just evil, purposeless, miserable, unhappy, deluded people.

By mit

March 15, 2005 03:02 PM | Link to this

posting here is crappy sometimes.

my two posts read the same because this thing made me write it over and went ahead posted both.

and what’s with the error id that sends you to the ajc sports website when you hit post sometimes.

By Jack

March 15, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this

Mit - The stars and planets have to be lined up and you have to hold your mouth just right.

By lozen

March 15, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this

If I left my apartment at 2am and noticed a man sitting nearby in a truck and then, when I came back he was still there only closer to my door, (especially if it had been on tv all day about an escapee who shot and beat several people)I would have called 911 then! However, she did keep her head once he was in her apartment and it worked out. If it had been me, I probably would have talked about god too, since I know almost all murderers and other criminals claim to be christians. I would have tried everything in the book and checked his reactions carefully to keep from being raped and killed.

By norman

March 15, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

I expect Bernie Ebbers to get religion any minute now. Then he can get forgiven.

By chuck

March 15, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this

I looked back at my post and cannot figure out what name I called you other than JMorris…As for whether or not the tube should have been as you say, shoved in 15 years ago, that’s another discussion. The fact of the matter is it was inserted. Once that decision was made there is an obligation to provide that until death by other causes. The hypocratic oath forbids euthanasia.

If you recall, you said: if you read the medical reports from the trials (That statement was made to give the impression that you had read the transcripts)You are certainly being disengenuous, because you just admitted in your last post that you while I have certainly not read all the court transcripts again disengenuous. I CONTEND THAT YOU HAVE NOT READ ANY OF THE COURT TRANSCRIPTS. I HAVE read the summaries of the “expert” opinions on a number of web sites including findlaw.com and they do not say that there is NO BRAIN ACTIVITY. There is limited brain activity. She is NOT brain dead as you have asserted. They also don’t account for possible medical breakthroughs. As for the fashion debate comment, that had nothing to do with you being gay, it had to do with the weight and importance of the debate. It seems you are a little defensive and overly sensitive on that issue. Your problem not mine.

By Jack

March 15, 2005 03:31 PM | Link to this

Norman - Have you seen a picture of Bernie’s castle? GIANT. Hope he never gets to live in it.

By norman

March 15, 2005 03:35 PM | Link to this

Jack: Bernie deserves hell for the pain he has inflicted on countless employees and investors and on the general public. These malefactors of great wealth think they are the lords of creation and our religious institutions flatter them in this in order to get contributions. We should treat them the way John the Baptist would have treated them.

If only our Christians knew something about Christianity.

By lozen

March 15, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this

Should euthanasia be legalized in cases of a terminal illness? It will happen eventually but don’t hold your breath. Religion still has too much of a strangle hold on too many people in this country - including our president. Washington state made assisted suicide much easier and the U.S. Attorney General’s office has gone after them because Ashcroft doesn’t believe you or I should be able to decide when we’re ready to die (him being such a christian and all).

By lyrazel

March 15, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this

lee, I have a living will as does husband. Says in line 2 I do not wish to be kept alive in a vegetative state by artificial devices. I guess I am braver than most but I made all arrangements so my family is not burdened. Also, I have issues with politicians using my corpse to further their platforms—so none but family are to interfere with decisions. Life is hard enough without some crackpot politician deciding their morality is superior to my doctors and husbands.

By lozen

March 15, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this

Chuck, Hippocratic Oath. You’re a school teacher?

By J. Morris

March 15, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this

Well Gee, Chuck, since you called me Miss Morris last week, who can blame me for being sensitive. Oh, and just to name two names - you called me both God Jr. and Napoleon. I’m surprised you’ve heard of Napolean - he’s a historical figure who isn’t from Redneckville, GA.

Medical breakthroughs? Something that can reconstruct the CEREBRAL CORTEX which now no longer exists? Wow - that would take…like…stem cell research…

If you had indeed read the trial reports you would see that all experts agree that the brain activity you refer to is that of autonomous functions, rather than HIGHER brain activity, which your selective reading keeps ignoring. That is the definition of brain death…just because the lungs keep working doesn’t mean the person is there.

I strongly disagree with your claim that there is an obligation to continue life-extending treatment until death by other causes. It is a simple answer to a complex question.

By chuck

March 15, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this

Lozen,

I noticed you posted several times on this topic and I have seen a number of sentences that lacked beginnigng capitalization. You also have posted a number of run on sentences and have demonstrated a lack of understanding of the use of the “comma”. If you have something to say about the substance of my article…say it. If you want to edit my posts, feel free.

By Jack

March 15, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this

Chuck - You never answered. Would you want to be kept alive in a vegetative state? How bout you Zack? Coach?

By vince

March 15, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this

OK. My proposal to legalize euthanasia follows in accordance to Bill 47Ad9, stating that euthanasia is permitted only in the following cirumstances:

1) Parking Lot B is full 2) All gay people need to be euthanized 3) SpongeBob Squarepants 4) Tele Tubbies (Remember that one?) 5) Anyone caught with a costume malfunction on live t.v. 6) Public Nudity (Adam & Eve really got away with so much walking about all nekkid) 7) Anyone using cigars for sex 8) The person who leaked to the American press that the US Government has lost (not spent) 9 BILLION in Iraq 9) Anyone who dares to wonder if just maybe the high cost of gas has anything to do with a failed Texas Oil Man occupying the Presidency 10) Anyone who brings up the name Jeff Gannon 11) And can we get rid of those people who keep asking that annoying, and yet unanswerable question, “why aren’t there any plane parts in any picture of the attack at The Pentagon on Sept.11, 2001?” (Which by the way, the US Government’s website has pictures of the “crash” time stamped Sept.12)

By Michael

March 15, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this

Try this news on for size:

[http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3084934]

Sun Hudson, a baby born with a lethal deformity and on a ventilator since birth nearly six months ago, will be disconnected from life support at 2 p.m. today, according to a lawyer representing the baby’s mother.

…

Without legal delays, Sun’s life support would have ended Nov. 28.

No other facility Texas Children’s, in accordance with state law, had its ethics committee review Sun’s case before recommending that life support be discontinued. The law requires that relatives be given 10 days to find another facility for the patient. In Sun’s case, no such facility was found.

Because of concerns about Hudson’s mental competence, Texas Children’s encouraged court involvement and offered to pay for Hudson’s legal counsel.

…

By chuck

March 15, 2005 04:09 PM | Link to this

So disagree…that’s kind of the point of this forum isn’t it? God, Jr. isn’t really derogatory in nature. It is called satire. That is a literary device used in this instance to point out the fact that you always claim intellectual superiority where it doesn’t exist. For the same reason, I used the term Napoleon complex.

Main Entry: Napoleon complex Part of Speech: noun Definition: the condition of being small in stature but aggressively ambitious and seeking absolute control

I did not call you Napoleon.

As for the miss morris comment last week, if you recall, I apologized for that. If your sensitive temperament can’t handle a little sharp-witted sarcasm now and then you probably ought to stick to the fashion topic…gay or not.

By Jack

March 15, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this

Isn’t Napoleon that ice-cream that has vanilla, chocolate & strawberry in the same carton?

By chuck

March 15, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this

BTW, Morris, Just for the record, I don’t think you have seen ANY complaint by me concerning your use of name-calling. I have only pointed out that it is what you resort to when you don’t have a valid argument.

By J. Morris

March 15, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this

Well Chuck, you didn’t actually apologize for it. You used it a second time. Sorry if getting bashed makes me a little angry.

And - wow - you mean I do get to disagree? Everytime I’ve tried it in the past you’ve told me what a pseudo-intellectual I am and how I don’t have any business posting.

Gee, thanks for your magnanimous permission to post.

By J. Morris

March 15, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this

Chuck, since I think you have never had a valid argument, I guess we’re even.

By vince

March 15, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this

Jack… That ice cream is called,”SrawVanChoc”.Napoleon ice cream comes in those really tiny tiny cartons.

By J. Morris

March 15, 2005 04:28 PM | Link to this

No no - NEAPOLITAN ice cream is the three-flavored ice cream. A Napoleon is a kind of pastry.

By lozen

March 15, 2005 04:47 PM | Link to this

i can’t say anithing, about the substence of your artycle, chuck, because there isn’t any,and i am not a teecher, and even i, know how to spel “Hippocratic”

By Jack

March 15, 2005 04:50 PM | Link to this

More people are killed by Hippos than any other animal in Africa

By lozen

March 15, 2005 04:54 PM | Link to this

Jack, lol!!!!! you do know how reedicilus this is, don’t you? Everybody is looking at me because I’m laughing so hard….

By Tim

March 15, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

lozen… I am right there with ya… I am still laughing at the hippo comment :)

By Jack

March 15, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

Trying to lighten it up a bit. Talk to ya later!

By chuck

March 16, 2005 07:45 AM | Link to this

Lozen, You are obviously not much of a learner either since you keep posting the same drivel over and over again. Have a nice day in the “home”.

By Lisa

March 16, 2005 07:56 AM | Link to this

Since the topic has turned to religion again, I have something to say. I have been reading these comments for a few weeks and some of the christians have really touched my heart. I believe I want to start a relationship with Jesus. My question for the christians is, what books do you read, other than the bible, to gain your knowledge and understanding and should I go to church every week? I am not interested in comments from non-christians, no offence, but I have been where you are and it is not very fulfilling nor satisfying. I really want a relationship with Jesus and God. Thanks for everyone’s understanding.

By J. Morris

March 16, 2005 08:23 AM | Link to this

No offense to you Lisa, but this really isn’t the place for you to have your converstion. We all know you’re really Zack pretending to be moved by all the “Keep it up, Christians” nonsense they’ve been spouting.

By AllaboutME

March 16, 2005 08:28 AM | Link to this

lisa….WHY ASK HERE unless its somekind of stupid joke…surely you know what a damn church is…thats where they keep ministers and holy relics and paper bags in the seat in front of you for motion sickness….

By norman

March 16, 2005 08:31 AM | Link to this

Lisa: why do you want a relationship with a weird Jewish apocalyptic who died two thousand years ago and about whom we know very little indeed?

By Lyrazel

March 16, 2005 08:38 AM | Link to this

Ok ONE QUESTION to cut the cheese. If a Christian Scientist wants by beliefs not be recessistated and not accept medical treatment is it YOUR governments right to keep them plugged into devices that prolong suffering life if they have no will if they are mentally incapasitated like TS?

By chuck

March 16, 2005 08:42 AM | Link to this

Lisa,

If you want to learn about Christ, the best place to be is a Bible believing church. I would suggest that you check around your area to see which church is most involved in missions work. That is usually a good sign that they believe the word. My personal preference is Southern Baptist, but there are other good churches out there. If you want to e-mail (jyarbro212@aol.com) me the general area in which you live, I can probably make a suggestion of a local church. Yes, you should try to go as often as possible.

As for books, a good place to start is “The Purpose Driven Life” by Rick Warren.

By chuck

March 16, 2005 08:49 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel,Terry Schiavo is not plugged in to any machines. She has a feeding tube through which she receives nourishment. She is breathing on her own, her heart is beating on its own. We are not talking about “unplugging machines” which ARTIFICIALLY keep someone alive. We are talking about providing food and water to a medical patient. I have no problem unplugging machines. What I have a problem with is taking active steps to kill someone. There is a huge PHILOSOPHICAL difference between the two.

By DeltaX

March 16, 2005 08:55 AM | Link to this

Religious folk understand this: One of the scientific mind would have no problem with accepting god (or any other possible truth for that matter) if/when it was proven/reached by science/rational. So, a person (religious fanatic) can not pigeon hole the scientific person into what his beliefs are or how they will change; because they are based on TRUTH that has been discovered - a continual process. This truth expands over time and allows us to adapt to what actually IS and not what we would like to believe. We do not pursue ideas and abandon them when they are not convenient (look at the huge rift bw quantum physics and classical physics). We may grunt and groan that we now have to deal with an aspect that is not what we imagined to be “best,” but we are wise enough to know that we do not necessarily know what IS best - so we accept it and continue learning.

In short: We live, experience and grow. We append what we believe as truth as it reveals itself. We are dynamic and understand that it takes a pluralistic mind in order to see things in there true complexity.

By Tony

March 16, 2005 09:03 AM | Link to this

Chuck, Boscoe, Zack, Randy and the many good Christians who have posted. I believe you and your Spouses have spoken concerning Terri’s situation. I know that you know that Terri will be in a far better place if the feeding tube is removed.

I believe that most of you have expressed with your spouses that under no circumstance, to keep you alive if you where in Terri’s condition. (Love sometimes means letting go).

This has nothing to do with euthanasia. It has do to with the wishes of someone who is incapable of making hers known other than through the quiet spoken words between a husband and a wife. Please understand her wishes and don’t judge her husband.

JMorris, RS, Whiley and the other good people. Please consider that a parents love of their child never ends. (Blood is always thicker than water). At the very least, shouldn’t he (Terri’s Husband) allow the swallow test to be preformed again to see if Terri can indeed live on her own? That’s compassion towards her grieving parents. If Terri demonstrates the will to live by swallowing, than the issue is ended. It’s one thing to remove the tube, but without giving Terri a chance to prove without a doubt her will to survive, well that is just flat wrong.

Lisa my new friend, find a Catholic Church and talk with a priest. May God Bless you and help you find his Love.

Whatever our hands touch… We leave fingerprints! On walls, on furniture, On doorknobs, dishes, books, As we touch we leave our identity.

Oh please where ever I go today, Help me leave heart prints! Heart prints of compassion Of understanding and love. Heart prints of kindness and genuine concern.

May my heart touch a lonely neighbor Or a runaway daughter, Or an anxious mother, Or, perhaps, a dear friend!

I shall go out today To leave heart prints, And if someone should say “I felt your touch,” May that one sense be…

YOUR LOVE Touching through ME.

[ Author Unknown — from Darwin, via Charlene ]

By chuck

March 16, 2005 09:11 AM | Link to this

We don’t know that she will be in a better place Tony. We don’t know the spiritual condition of her heart. I have a living will so that my spouse will not have to or be able to make the decision. Most living wills do not cover the Schiavo situation.

By norman

March 16, 2005 09:18 AM | Link to this

Tony: if you think a Catholic priest is what Lisa needs I am worried about what you need.

By Jack

March 16, 2005 09:18 AM | Link to this

If she had had a living will this would all be moot and she would be with God.

By norman

March 16, 2005 09:43 AM | Link to this

It might interest some of you bible thumpers and church goers that scholars think the most authentic version of earliest Christianity can be found neither in Christian churches nor Jewish synagogues but in Shiite mosques!

Read Robert Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus, Penguin Books, 1996.

By Whiley

March 16, 2005 09:51 AM | Link to this

“We as your parents, Terri, love you so much we want to keep you alive no matter what. We also hope you have no idea what is going on, because being trapped in the same bed for 15 years must be mental TORTURE. I know, we just won’t think about that right now.”

By Tony

March 16, 2005 09:58 AM | Link to this

Chuck, your correct. We don’t know if Terri will be in a better place, but I believe. I believe with my heart and soul she will be or she will swallow!

By Lisa

March 16, 2005 10:17 AM | Link to this

Thanks Chuck and Tony for your input I will consider both churches, Southern Baptist and Catholic. The way I look at it, if they follow Jesus Christ they will both be a great place for my spritiual growth.

By Steve

March 16, 2005 10:18 AM | Link to this

Norman, Robert Eisenman, though a scholar, is well in the minority on his views of early Christianity. In fact, I think if you looked at a broad spectrum of scholarly work done in this area you will find that Eisenman, along with simlar views by Bagent (spelling?) and Lee, have been largely discredited.

Carry on…

By Vince

March 16, 2005 10:44 AM | Link to this

I’m curious…. If the “after life” is such a better place, why are the bible thumpers so damn insistent on making sure every human lives and lives and lives and lives, while at the same time shows no regard for anyone who is not white, American and a Baptist? If the next life is so much better, then why not butt out and let people make decisions on a case to case basis?

By norman

March 16, 2005 10:50 AM | Link to this

Steve: Eisenman’s ideas about the Dead Sea Scrolls are controversial and not accepted by many scholars. But his view of early Jewish-Christianity as led by James the Just have been accepted for over a century. See the work of Hans Joachim Schoeps on Jewish Christianity; he found that the essentials of earliest Christianity were rejected by the Gentile, Hellenistic Church and survived in various forms in Islam, particularly in Shiite Islam, with its emphasis on the family of Mohommed (cf. family of Jesus), the martyr tradition, and the tradition of the Hidden Imam who will return. Christianity as we know it is totally alien to the original disciples of Jesus centered around James the Just in Jerusalem. Paul recognized James as the leader. It was only James’ murder in 62 AD which permitted Christianity to become a totally un-Jewish, Hellenistic mystery religion.

By norman

March 16, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this

Vince: your question is a good one. Christians want people to suffer in this life, that is the essence of sado-masochistic Christianity. Just listen to what the Pope says. Look at Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. Suffering is all.

By norman

March 16, 2005 11:02 AM | Link to this

Christianity owes what it has become to the Roman Empire. It has little to do with Jesus, about whom we have only fragmentary and novelistic information. The Roman conquest of Jerusalem destroyed early Christianity and permitted a new Gentile cult of Jesus to develop which Constantine in the 4th century made the official religion of the Empire.

Catholics always laugh that the Anglican/Episcopal church was founded by a scoundrel like Henry VIII. I laugh that all of Christianity was founded by degenerate murdering emperors like Constantine. Delusional fanatics like Paul. Ambitious popes like Gregory the Great.

While Jesus returned to earth would be appalled by what is preached about him, Paul would recognize in every redneck preacher a kindred fanatical soul. And Constantine would recognize in Jerry Falwell another religious politician like himself.

By norman

March 16, 2005 11:04 AM | Link to this

Sorry to hog the site here. But I am on a roll of sorts. Christianity is the most monstrous fraud ever perpetrated on the human race. Pure and simple. I cannot hide this truth from my fellow man and woman, even if they prefer to life in ignorance and deception.

By Jack

March 16, 2005 11:16 AM | Link to this

Bet you liked “The DaVinci Code” didn’t you Norman? I know the church really liked the book. They liked it so much that they requested we not read it. Why could that be? people at my office will not read it because they say it could sway people the wrong way. These same people say that watching “The Passion” makes people better Christians. That is bull to me fore i beleive that if a book or a movie can sway your beliefs then you weren’t a believer to begin with. If Mel had not had so much blood & guts in the movie nobody would have went to see it…there i said it. Now I feel better.

By Bruce

March 16, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this

As a Christian I understand the position that Chuck, and others have taken on Mrs. Schiavo. I think it is the method of termination that has people spooked.

However, the compassionate side of me says let her go. If she cannot live without any assistance whatsoever then maybe we are playing God by not letting her go. It sounds to me like God has already called her home, we (her parents) just refuse to let her go. Waiting on advancments in medical technology is not a realistic argument to allow someone to put through what everyone connected to this case has gone through.

By Tony

March 16, 2005 11:23 AM | Link to this

Do you believe that God not only loves you, but knows where you are and what you’re doing every minute of the day?

I certainly do after an amazing experience I had several years ago. At the time I was driving on 1-75 near Dayton, Ohio, with my wife and children. We turned off the highway for a rest and refreshment stop. My wife Barbara and children went into the restaurant. I suddenly felt the need to stretch my legs, so waved them off ahead saying I’d join them later. I bought a soft drink, and as I walked toward a Dairy Queen, feelings of self-pity enshrouded my mind. I loved the Lord, but I felt drained, burdened. My cup was empty.

Suddenly the impatient ringing of a telephone nearby jarred me out of my doldrums. It was coming from a phone booth at a service station on the corner. Wasn’t anyone going to answer the phone?

Noise from the traffic flowing through the busy intersection must have drowned out the sound because the service station attendant continued looking after his customers, oblivious to the incessant ringing.

“Why doesn’t somebody answer that phone?” I muttered. I began reasoning. “It may be important. What if it’s an emergency?”

Curiosity overcame my indifference. I stepped inside the booth and picked up the phone.

“Hello,” I said casually and took a big sip of my drink. The operator said: “Long distance call for Ken Gaub.”

My eyes widened, and I almost choked on a chunk of ice. Swallowing hard, I said, “You’re crazy!” Then realizing I shouldn’t speak to an operator like that, I added, “This can’t be! I was walking down the road, not bothering anyone, and the phone was ringing… “Is Ken Gaub there?” the operator interrupted, “I have a long distance call for him.”

It took a moment to gain control of my babbling, but I finally replied, “Yes, he is here.”

Searching for a possible explanation, I wondered if I could possibly be on Candid Camera! Still shaken, perplexed, I asked, “How in the world did you reach me here? I was walking down the road, the pay phone started ringing, and I just answered it on chance. You can’t mean me.”

“Well,” the operator asked, “is Mr. Gaub there or isn’t he?” “Yes, I am Ken Gaub,” I said, finally convinced by the tone of her voice that the call was real. Then I heard another voice say, “Yes, that’s him, operator. That’s Ken Gaub.”

I listened dumbfounded to a strange voice identify herself. “I’m Millie from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. You don’t know me, Mr. Gaub,but I’m desperate. Please help me.”

“What can I do for you?”

She began weeping. Finally she regained control and continued. “I was about to commit suicide, had just finished writing a note, when I began to pray and tell God I really didn’t want to do this. Then I suddenly remembered seeing you on television and thought if I could just talk to you, you could help me. I knew that was impossible because I didn’t know how to reach you, I didn’t know anyone who could help me find you. Then some numbers came to my mind, and I scribbled them down.”

At this point she began weeping again, and I prayed silently for wisdom to help her. She continued, “I looked at the numbers and thought, ‘Wouldn’t it be wonderful if I had a miracle from God, and He has given me Ken’s phone number?’ I decided to try calling it. I can’t believe I’m talking to you. Are you in your office in California?”

I replied, “Lady, I don’t have an office in California. My office is in Yakima, Washington.”

A little surprised, she asked, “Oh really, then where are you?” “Don’t you know?” I responded. “You made the call.”

She explained, “But I don’t even know what area I’m calling. I just dialed the number that I had on this paper.”

“Ma’am, you won’t believe this, but I’m in a phone booth in Dayton,Ohio!”

“Really?” she exclaimed. “Well, what are you doing there?”

I kidded her gently, “Well, I’m answering the phone. It was ringing as I walked by, so I answered it.”

Knowing this encounter could only have been arranged by God, I began to counsel the woman. As she told me of her despair and frustration,the presence of the Holy Spirit flooded the phone booth giving me words of wisdom beyond my ability. In a matter of moments, she prayed the sinner’s prayer and met the One who would lead her out of her situation into a new life.

I walked away from that telephone booth with an electrifying sense of our heavenly Father’s concern for each of His children. What were the astronomical odds of this happening? With all the millions of phones and innumerable combinations of numbers, only an all-knowing God could have caused that woman to call that number in that phone booth at that moment in time.

Forgetting my drink and nearly bursting with exhilaration, I headed back to my family, wondering if they would believe my story. Maybe I better not tell this, I thought, but I couldn’t contain it. “Barb, you won’t believe this! God knows where I am!”

Addendum — “Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and show thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not.” Jer 33:3

[ Ken Gaub (Yakima, Washington) — from Keith Todd ]

Norman, I can post more if you want?

By Jack

March 16, 2005 11:29 AM | Link to this

Sounds like a fantasy to me.

By lozen

March 16, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this

I heard something about a priest who wants to ban The DaVinci Code because part of the story is about jesus marrying and having children! Oh well, it wouldn’t be the first time they burned books.

By Whiley

March 16, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

By norman

March 16, 2005 11:36 AM | Link to this

Jack: I did not like the Da Vinci Code because it has no historical foundation. The gnostic Coptic Gospels and other writings are much later than the 4 Gospels. What I am saying is that Christianity as based on Paul and the 4 Gospels is not what the disciples of Jesus believed at all.

What is interesting about the Da Vinci Code novel, and I have said this before, is that so many Catholics love it. Deep down they know that their church is a fraud and they love to read about its crimes and deceits. But since the book is a novel, they can always plead “it’s just a novel.” They do not read biblical scholarship.

By lozen

March 16, 2005 11:37 AM | Link to this

Okay Whiley, lol. What do you want to talk about?

By Lyrazel

March 16, 2005 11:40 AM | Link to this

Still cant find a feminist agenda concerning euthanasia, Shaunti. I will keep looking.

By Bruce

March 16, 2005 11:43 AM | Link to this

Norman, You have confusing states in your last several post, please clarify.

You said: “the essentials of earliest Christianity were rejected by the Gentile, Hellenistic Church and survived in various forms in Islam, particularly in Shiite Islam, with its emphasis on the family of Mohommed (cf. family of Jesus), the martyr tradition, and the tradition of the Hidden Imam who will return.”

Now I take this to mean that you believe Christianity begins with Islam, correct?

The later you said: “Christianity owes what it has become to the Roman Empire.”

Now which is it Norman, should we Christians be beholding to Islam or thr Romans?

By norman

March 16, 2005 11:44 AM | Link to this

Tony: the holy spirit is something invented by Paul of Tarsus to explain how he who had never seen Jesus could know so much about him, more than those who had lived with him for a nunber of years. Like a fairy spirit, perhaps.

But, no, I don’t need any more of that crap, thank you.

By norman

March 16, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this

Bruce: you are confused, naturally.

The traditions of earliest Christianity have survived if at all in Islam.

What we call Christianity in the West (Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, redneck Georgia Baptist) was created by Constantine and his associates in the 4th century from the Gentile traditions, largely fraudulent, about Jesus.

If you did come across real authentic Christianity, it would look mostly like Shiite Islam and you wouldn’t like it one bit. So chuck the whole thing and live like a free, rational man for a change.

By Bruce

March 16, 2005 11:56 AM | Link to this

OK Norman, tell me more about your religion. First what is it called, Normanisam? How do I become a member and what will it cost me? Who do I worship and what is his/her/its name?

By Whiley

March 16, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this

lol lozen !

(Anything but religious garbage.)

By Lee

March 16, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this

ummm, why would the lady call the operator instead of the phone just ringing after she called the number? … unless this story is from a time when operators assisted phone calls…

Otherwise, Tony, chuck, Coach, Do you have a living will? If so, what does it say? If not, what would you want it to say?

By Bruce

March 16, 2005 12:02 PM | Link to this

Oh and another question Norman. Can you give me a real life experience, one that you and only you have had, that lead you to believe your religion is the only true religion?

By lozen

March 16, 2005 12:06 PM | Link to this

I’ve wondered what this world would be like if there were representations of woman bleeding and giving birth on every altar, instead of jesus suffering and bleeding, dying on the cross. I once heard a theory that men invented religion because they did not have the power women have to give birth/life. Oh well, it’s an interesting theory.

By norman

March 16, 2005 12:06 PM | Link to this

bruce: I am not pushing any religion. A free man should live by Reason. I am giving you historical-scholarly criticism of your religion in the best tradition of 400 years of superb biblical and historical research. If you need someone to worship, how about Spinoza or Aristotle or Bertrand Russell?

You see, brucie, religion is for children.

By Jack

March 16, 2005 12:16 PM | Link to this

Lee - They won’t answer the question. I have asked them a couple of times. They probably don’t want to come off as hippocrites.

By lozen

March 16, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this

Jack, it’s hypocrites…..ha,ha!

By lozen

March 16, 2005 12:26 PM | Link to this

You knew that Jack!

By Jack

March 16, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this

Did you know that Hippos…

By Whiley

March 16, 2005 12:32 PM | Link to this

I wonder when a NEW episode of “LOST” is going to be on?

By Bruce

March 16, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this

Well Norman I do not think I have enough faith to believe in nothing at all. What purpose does a reasonable man have? Isn’t there anyone he must answer too? How do we even know that Spinoza or Aristotle or Russell even existed? All we have are ancient documents saying that they did.

By lozen

March 16, 2005 12:44 PM | Link to this

Why I Am Not a Christian by Bertrand Russell is a very enlightening book. Another is The Born Again Skeptic’s Guide to the Bible.

By lozen

March 16, 2005 12:47 PM | Link to this

Why are they already showing reruns on Lost anyway?

By Whiley

March 16, 2005 12:52 PM | Link to this

LOZEN I have no idea. Of course when you see a rerun you notice things you didn’t before.

What do you think the meaning of the island & the numbers are?

By Bruce

March 16, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this

Who is Bertrand Russell and who worte this other book?

By Tony

March 16, 2005 12:56 PM | Link to this

Lee, I do not have a will. I have expressed my feelings with my wife. I would not want to live if I was as Terri is. I believe Terri expressed that to her husband. I believe Terri’s tube will be removed. I would hope that they would try the swallow test again to see if she can. If she can, her will to survive is strong. If she can’t, well they will try and keep her comfortable, but without water, she will not last long.

By lozen

March 16, 2005 12:59 PM | Link to this

Oh, I just realized the long post about the phone call was from Tony who used to be Texas who loves to cut and paste. Here’s my story: A roommate I had five years ago told me “We don’t have to die. The only reason we die is because we believe we’ll die.” I said, “Who told you that?” “Linda Goodman in her new book says she met yogis in India that are 400-500 years old,” she said. “Is that the same Linda Goodman who wrote “Sun Signs” about astrology?” “Yes.” So I said, “When she brings some of them over here with a birth certificate, I might believe that.” My roommate was a recovering catholic who never went to church but was still quite gullible. It’s hard to overcome that childhood conditioning!

By Brian Curtis

March 16, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this

It requires no faith to doubt, Bruce; that’s why it’s called doubt. Faith is belief without evidence; doubt is the default position until evidence is discovered.

This is the basic function of reason—to enable us to separate truth from falsehood, fact from fable. Or, in the absence of any compelling evidence either way, to shrug and accept that we can’t answer the question. How does that require so much “faith”?

(Side note: When it comes to ancient authors, we don’t have much certainty that ANY given individual by that name definitely existed. We do, however, have evidence that someone writing under that name existed—namely, their writings. Are you willing to concede that the Bible is evidence only of someone writing in God’s name? If not, then you’re going on faith, not reason.)

By Whiley

March 16, 2005 01:03 PM | Link to this

Why are christians so obsessed with death? Boy you people are depressing !

By Jack

March 16, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this

You must go thru Hell on earth to get to Heaven. Lifes a b*h then you die.

By J. Morris

March 16, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this

Life’s a Bah?

By Jack

March 16, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this

I meant the word that rhimes with hitch. Big brother edited it out.

By J. Morris

March 16, 2005 01:35 PM | Link to this

It should have given you more stars! You got cheated. You was robbed.

By Bruce

March 16, 2005 01:37 PM | Link to this

B.C.,

There doesn’t seem to be any doubt in Norman, and he claims to have the evidence to prove his opinion. That is way I am asking him these questions. If there is a better way to live out there prove it. “doubt is a default position until evidence is discovered” Can I assume that NO evidence has been discoverd to support your position?

If the people writing these books can’t use their own names how can you be sur ethey are telling the truth? If there is, or never has been, such a person named Spinoza or Arstotle or Russell, then why to you put some much faith in their, or whoevers teachings?

By norman

March 16, 2005 01:37 PM | Link to this

Bruce: Lord Bertrand Russell was one of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century. He also wrote a book called Why I am Not a Christian.

Benedict Spinoza was a 17th Century philosopher who developed the ideas of Pantheism, God is in everything and everywhere, not a personal God but a sort of organizing principle.

I think you know Aristotle was a Greek philosopher and the teacher of Alexander the Great. Teachers do not always enjoy the use made of their teaching by their students.

As for the purpose of a life, well I favor the existential position, that while life has no ontological meaning (that is meaning above us all) it can have whatever meaning you decide to live by. To live courageously in the face of no meaning is truly to live the life of a rational man in the best tradition of the ancients.

By Jack

March 16, 2005 01:39 PM | Link to this

What is funny is that I didn’t even spell it out. I used the 1st 7 last letters with stars in the middle and they took 2 stars off!(Big Brother, I know not to use profanity)

By chuck

March 16, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this

Jack, you might want to check my post at 9:11 this morning. If you look at all of my posts on this topic you will see that I have been perfectly consistent. I do not have a problem with allowing someone to die by not hooking them up to machines to to keep them alive artificially. That is NOT Euthanasia. Euthanasia is taking active steps to kill someone who would otherwise live. Since Terry Schiavo has brain activity, breathes on her on, and has a strong heart that beats without assistance from a machine, taking steps to starve her to death is wrong. Unhooking a person from a machine is not Euthanasia because that person cannot live independently from a respirator or a heart/lung machine. Answering the question once again. I have a living will that requires that I not be rescusitated if the doctors believe that I am terminal. It also states that I am not to be kept alive by artificial means if there is no brain activity. In other words, if I am in Terry Schiavos situation, the feeding tube will remain in place. The decision will not be left to my family because I don’t want them to have to decide whether I am to live or to die.

By Bruce

March 16, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this

Norman,

Thanks for the insight for these people. I do have a question about your statement on Aristotle though. You are content with the fact that those that live by his teachings do not always following them, yet you condem Christains for doing the same. That seems double sided. Please forgive me but I am only trying to understand your position since this is all new to me and I am just a Georgia redneck.

Also, I you live your life how you decide why do you depend on the teaching of these men to explain your position. Aren’t you living according how they decided you should?

As I asked before, please give me an example or a real life experience you, yourself have gone through that defines the meanng of life. Not what Aristotle or Russell or Spinoza has to say. Something YOU have experienced that brought you to this level of reason.

By norman

March 16, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this

Some good news today: 1. The judge has confirmed the death sentence for Scott Peterson. It will be years before the system allows him to be executed. But when that happens we can rejoice as we did when Tim Mc Veigh was sent on his way to eternity. 12. Bernie Ebbers has been found guilty. He has defrauded countless employees and stockholders, a good example of capitalism in practice. I hope he stays in prison for the rest of his life and all his ill-gotten assets are confiscated.

By J. Morris

March 16, 2005 01:57 PM | Link to this

Florida Statute - 765.101

(10) “Life-prolonging procedure” means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.

So, legally there is no difference between a respirator and a feeding tube.

By JohnR

March 16, 2005 01:57 PM | Link to this

Gosh, why is necessaary for a life to have purpose? How hard is it to accept that life just is? Why do you have to matter so much? Why is christianity so damned selfish? It’s all about you! You have to make up some imaginary friend (Jesus) that you can talk to, that watches over you. You invent another imaginary father figure that punishes your enemies, forgives your guilt, and promises you that you will never die as long as you keep on believing in him! It must be mighty convenient to get to go to heaven just for doing what you’re supposed to do.

And by the way, almost every ancient civilization worshiped the fertility of women, what happened

By NORMAN

March 16, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this

BRUCE: YOU MISUNDERSTOOD WHAT I SAID ABOUT ARISTOTLE. I MEANT THAT HE COULD NOT HAVE FELT GOOD ABOUT WHAT ALEXANDER THE GREAT LEARNED AT HIS FEET.

Bruce: I have studied and thought and taught all my life and have concluded that no religion accurately reflects reality. That if there is a God he is not the kind of God who is in a relationship with people, only a geometer God who did his job and left a long time ago.

The problem of life is to live, not to relate to an imaginary or distant being, to find a saviour in a dead figure of primitive semitic society who somehow has shed his blood that God will not condemn you to hell, as if any of that makes sense at all. It does not.

By J. Morris

March 16, 2005 02:05 PM | Link to this

I would also like to point out that the presence of brain activity does not indicate the presence of higher function. To use a computer metaphor, you can remove the CPU, but the power supply and fan keep running. A meaningless collection of characters may show up on the screen, but you’re never playing Half-Life again…

By norman

March 16, 2005 02:10 PM | Link to this

God bless you, John R. A man of wisdom!

By lyrazel

March 16, 2005 02:10 PM | Link to this

Womens blood has always been very sacred, so much so it was feared. Also blood has always had religious significance indeed menstral cycles were tied to the moon and seasonal calendars that popular modern religions still use. All faiths have very common parallels set in place for mass-conversion reasons. Indeed nothing in the bible is original made-on-the-spot new…except of course modern translations. The Black Death, the mongols, moors and medici also influenced christianity as well the Vikings whom I have no doubt will appear on LOST…

By Jack

March 16, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this

Chuck-I don’t recall saying you were inconsistent. You seem to be quite consistent.

By Jack

March 16, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this

I thought our purpose in life was to go forth and multiply. Been wanting to tell that to Zack and his crew for a while.

By J. Morris

March 16, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this

Lost interferes with Smallville…

By Tony

March 16, 2005 02:25 PM | Link to this

Darn, I was wrong again Chuck. I hate that.

Euthanasia: The intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit.

Euthanasia by Omission Intentionally causing death by not providing necessary and ordinary (usual and customary) care of food and water.

There is no euthanasia unless the death is intentionally caused by what was done or not done.

LIFE AND DEATH TUG OF WAR Philly columnist changes mind on Terri Schiavo ‘Uncomfortable details’ lead him to side with her parents

Posted: February 26, 2005 1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

A Philadelphia Inquirer columnist who believes in the “right to die” has changed his mind about the Terri Schiavo case, pointing to “uncomfortable details” about her estranged husband that now lead him to side with the parents of the brain-damaged Florida woman, who are fighting to keep her alive.

John Grogan said in a column published today, “I no longer so blithely believe Schiavo’s feeding tubes should be pulled and her life allowed to end. I’m no longer so sure her parents do not deserve a say in their daughter’s future. I no longer am totally comfortable assuming her husband, Michael, who now has two children by another woman, is acting unselfishly.”

Michael Schiavo has been living with his fiance Jodi Centonze since 1995 and has said he will marry her upon the death of his wife.

Grogan said he hasn’t changed his opinion that everyone has a right to “die with dignity,” but he believes that in the Schiavo case, the “devil is in the details, uncomfortable details that raise sticky moral dilemmas.”

Terri Schiavo suffered severe brain damage in 1990 after collapsing. Michael Schiavo attributes it to a chemical imbalance caused by an eating disorder, but parents Robert and Mary Schindler believe he may have tried to strangle her.

Michael Schiavo contends his wife told him she never would want to be kept alive artificially.

But Grogan points out Terri Schiavo’s heart and lungs function on their own, and she requires only a feeding tube that might not be necessary if she were given physical therapy.

The columnist notes Michael Schiavo, as her legal guardian, has forbidden any therapy.

“If [Terri] Schiavo merely required spoon feeding instead of tube feeding, would anyone seriously be arguing to withhold food and water?” Grogan asked. “Does not every human, no matter how incapacitated, deserve sustenance?”

Grogan also is concerned about abuse allegations against Michael Schiavo and believes they should be investigated.

The allegations “may be nothing but scurrilous rumor spread to damage his credibility,” he wrote. “But what if there is even a tiny chance he is guilty of abuse? Should such a person be in a position to decide this life-and-death issue?”

When it comes to who is best to decide, Grogan wrote, it’s clear that Terri Schiavo’s parents “have proved themselves nothing if not fiercely loyal, utterly committed parents. They might be misguided. They might be in denial. But no one can argue their devotion. They have not given up. They have not stopped caring. They have not stopped loving. Who are we, as a society, to tell them they must?

Grogan concluded:

Clearly, Schiavo’s husband has moved on to a new life, and who can blame him? It’s been 15 long years. But parents cannot move on. Parents cannot give up. Their child will always be the precious gift they brought into the world. If the Schindlers want to dedicate the rest of their lives and resources to caring for their brain-damaged daughter, if they want to shower her with attention and affection she likely will never recognize, who among us will tell them they cannot

It won’t be me.

By Bruce

March 16, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this

Norman,

Why are you yelling at me? I am only trying to understand. Geez!

Also, just what God are you asking to bless JohnR? One minute you say there is no God and the next you are ask Him to bless JohnR.

JohnR, are you just trying to start something? Surely you do not believe the life doesn’t have purpose. For crying out loud, everything has purpose.

By Jack

March 16, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

Bruce - Give up. Say uncle. We are not in Norman’s league. His ideas are way out there. he seems very intelligent though. (I think Mother Nature is his God)

By Bruce

March 16, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this

Jack,

If his ideas, thoughts or teaching are so far out there then how does he ever expect someone to buy into what he says is the truth?

I am a simple kind of man just explain it to me in a way so I can understand and then I can give credit to what you say. I am not trying to be difficult just explain it so I can understand.

That is why the Bible makes perfect sense to me. God explains it so I can understand it.

By Jack

March 16, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this

We should all take a “soma” holiday.

By Brian Curtis

March 16, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this

Bruce: To answer your questions and comments:

*I don’t claim responsibility for Norman’s positions, or anyone else’s. If he’s certain that no god or gods exist, cool; I’d like to hear his evidence and reasoning too. Me, I simply don’t know. I CAN prove that certain specific descriptions of deities (such as the Catholic one) are impossible, but that’s another matter.

“Can I assume that NO evidence has been discoverd to support your position?” Which position—that Mrs. Schiavo has no higher brain function and is therefore dead as a person? There’s solid evidence and reason supporting that. Or the question of “believing in nothing” (which no one here has claimed)? Lack of belief in gods, of course, is not a positive claim; it is a recognition there are no valid claims supported by verifiable evidence.

“If the people writing these books can’t use their own names how can you be sure they are telling the truth?”

Well, in most cases it doesn’t matter who they were, or if they even believed what they wrote—the validity of their ideas is all that matters. And I don’t put “faith” in their ideas—again, faith is belief WITHOUT evidence or logic to support it. I give credence to ideas that are rational and supported by evidence, but that’s not the same as faith.

Spinoza’s writings could have been the ramblings of a deranged racist pedophile, for example—but that’s irrelevant to whether his ideas are sound (i.e., logically supportable).

By JohnR

March 16, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this

Well, what is the purpose of life? I can dig the pro-creation angle, as all living things live to continue the species, makes perfect sense to me. Beyond that I fail to see any other reason to be here since we basically take up space, use resources, add nothing to the general continuem other than our offspring and our bone meal. What other purpose is there? In short we are relatively insignificant as individuals in the grand scheme of life. We’re here to live and that’s about it.

If you think a belief structure based on a supreme being that rewards you for doing the right thing or conversely punishes you or other nonorthodox peoples for not doing the right thing, and that gives your life purpose that’s cool with me. I’m not criticizing anybody, just making an observation. everybody finds their own purpose for getting out of bed in the morning.

By chuck

March 16, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this

Florida Statute 765.309 Mercy killing or euthanasia not authorized; suicide distinguished.—

(1) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to condone, authorize, or approve mercy killing or euthanasia, or to permit any affirmative or deliberate act or omission to end life other than to permit the natural process of dying.

eu·tha·na·sia (yth-nzh, -zh-) n.

The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment.

By Brian Curtis

March 16, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this

Well said, John. I was about to make a similar point.

quote from Bruce: “Surely you do not believe the life doesn’t have purpose. For crying out loud, everything has purpose.”

That’s an assumption, Bruce—or, if you will, a philosophical stance. It’s not a fact. The notion of a built-in “purpose” or “higher meaning” to everything, or just to human life itself, is one viewpoint. And it’s an enormously appealing one. But that doesn’t make it true.

As John has commented, if life has no inherent purpose, then it’s simply our job to find or choose a purpose: for ourselves, for our community/nation, or for all humanity. Or we could shrug and not care about “purpose” at all. It’s our choice.

By J. Morris

March 16, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this

While I don’t agree with Norman’s hardline atheist viewpoint, I wouldn’t say that his ideas are “out there”.

Personally, I have a very difficult time believing that a God who could create the universe is really the kind of petty “worship me, worship me, love me, love me - or I will destroy you and make you suffer throughout eternity” deity that evangelical, conservative Christians make him out to be.

I think that a lot of people are attracted to this form of Christianity because, as Bruce says, it’s simple and doesn’t require much thought. X = good, Y = bad. Do X and go to heaven. Do Y and go to hell. Most people like simple. Personally, I think the world is a lot more complex than “FIRE GOOD!”

Norman, in his own abrasive way (no offense intended, Norman), has simply been trying to point out that Christianity has been shaped, substantialyl shaped, by historical and cultural forces as much as anything else. It’s simple - there’s that word again - to believe that Christianity as it exists today exploded whole-cloth from the mind of God and has never changed. Unfortunately, that just isn’t true. There are entire schools of academic and theological thought devoted to the study of those forces…that’s why I say that Norman’s point is not “way out there”.

By Jack

March 16, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this

Religion changes over time as does man. We are smarter now and the church has somewhat recognized that. We were not supposed to eat meat on Fridays when I was young. Now we can. The church has made other minor changes. They will never budge on abortion and probably not euthanasia even though it is the humane & sensible way.

By J. Morris

March 16, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this

Chuck, Euthanasia involves actively ending someone’s life…by injecting drugs, or in drastic cases by shooting someone. The person thus euthanized would not otherwise have died on his or her own, but would continue to exist.

Though you keep claiming there is a distinction, there is NO DISTINCTION between turning off a respirator and removing a feeding tube. The ONLY difference is that we find the rather quick death resulting from lack of oxygen to be far more emotionally palatable than the slower death caused by starvation. However, in BOTH cases the body is unable to sustain itself without extreme and artificial measures.

Please note the phrase: “to end life other than to permit the natural process of dying.” I think we can all agree that Ms. Schiavo’s death would be from very natural causes.

By J. Morris

March 16, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this

I would like to point out that Chuck has consistently asserted that there is a difference between respirators and feeding tubes. When presented with a statute that specifically outlines that they are legally the same, he attempted to reframe his argument.

Just explaining the purpose of my last post, in case Chuck missed it.

By Lyrazel

March 16, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this

Tony, when you get married your parents are no longer your guardians, their love is nurturing and strong but children grow up and many times have beliefs that parents find difficult to accept or dont aprove of. TS is married and her husband would not be going through this hell if he did not love and respect the woman he married enough to try and follow her beliefs. Grogan is also not a physician connected to the case, has never spoken with the physicians in this case and for him to promote suspicious unproven fallacies like husband tried strangulation is ludicrous—for by now—any physician connected to the case would have called law enforcement had there been doubts. YEARS AGO! Why submit to husband bashing just because its popular? Wouldnt it stand to reason that after all these years he does understand something about prolonged suffering? He has been going to her now for 16 years without Jeb Bush and without TV news dropping in? How many doctors has he consulted in the years Terry has been hospitalized? Does Grogan name one doctor on this case or is it just his lofty opinion concluded because it rasises a dirty laundry aspect? Omissions sometimes speak louder than press releases!

Allow the husband the digity of actually understanding his wifes condition. If you think its about insurance schemes…ha! Ever get a hospital bill? How many years has she been in hospital? Yeah, he isnt collecting anything… The parents need to accept their daughter wont get better—even with massive swallowing therapy she will be brain dead…and maybe Terry did tell her husband I dont want to be kept alive by machines… Grogan never spoke to her did he? Grogan is not a doctor is he? Grogan made money publishing this article, didnt he? Yeah, so who is the real scum? People who profit off someone in a vegetative state or the man who after 15 years says: my wife, you should not suffer anymore. Turn the cameras and send the reporters away they were not there 12 years ago and they should not be here now.

By Jack

March 16, 2005 03:26 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel - Well said post. I’m sure Grogan would want to be kept alive like TS. He ranks up there with pond scum on the food chain.

By Tony

March 16, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel, Michael (Terri’s husband) has refused to provide his wife any rehabilitation or therapy for more than ten years. That’s not a sign of Love by any stretch of imagination.

He filed a malpractice lawsuit against the doctors who attended her and was awarded $1.3 million.

The bulk of the award was placed in a trust fund for her care and rehabilitation. However, as stated above, in the last 10 years, she has received no meaningful rehabilitation treatment.

By Zack

March 16, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this

I apologize if my not being on here yesterday offended anyone.

I’d like to point out to all who say that I and those like me resort to name-calling that I’m not the one calling others pond scum, etc.. I’ve noticed that, during the process of promoting the liberal agenda, said liberals become quite desperate and resort to all the name-calling and buzz words they can find.

I’d like to commend those like myself, Chuck, Randy, Boscoe, etc.. who ignore this and, for the most part, stick to reasonable posts.

By Vincent

March 16, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this

You want to see real compassion? I think its time for folks against abortion and euthanasia to take action. All the women out there - march down to the nearest lab holding those nasty stem cells, insert them into your body, carry it to term, raise it, etc. Also, stand outside an abortion clinic and offer to adopt that baby, raise it, etc. And, anyone caught up in an euthanasia situation, go to the hospital or hospice and legally adopt that person, and take care of him/her.

Did that make the bible thumpers sweat? Real compassion is listening to each human’s story and helping. Not judging. I seriously doubt anyone out there would do the above mentioned. Funny, huh? The suggestions above define real compassion.

Grow up people.

By lozen

March 16, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this

Each of us does create our own purpose and meaning in our lives by choosing what we want to believe the purpose and meaning is from the wealth of information available to us. I remember reading somewhere that maybe the meaning of human live is to move bacteria from one place to another! I don’t know and I can’t pretend to know. I have had experiences that some would attribute to god. I don’t. It’s impossible to put those experiences into words, but I have read things written by religious mystics that sound similar. However, those experiences did not make me believe in the inerrancy of the bible or the god Yahweh. Those beliefs seem infantile and simple minded. To claim that all truth was revealed 2,000+ years ago to a small group of Israelites just seems crazy to me. I think that’s more far out than the things Norman says. Ruth Green wrote The Born Again Skeptic’s Guide to the Bible. She was an ordinary, intelligent woman who discovered she was dying. While lying in bed waiting for the end, she began to read the bible and realized she could not believe it was anything other than myth written by uneducated people who still believed the earth was flat. There are atheists in foxholes!

By Jack

March 16, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this

Thankyou Zack. We enjoyed your absence.

By J. Morris

March 16, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this

I would like to see Zack write one post that does not include the words “liberal”, and “desperate”.

By Jack

March 16, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this

Zack would be right at home during the crusades. it would be fun to kill all the non-believers wouldn’t it Zack?

By Tony

March 16, 2005 04:05 PM | Link to this

Dear Friend of Life,

By now you have probably heard about a young woman who is threatened with starvation in Florida.

That young woman is my daughter, Terri. In 1990, through circumstances which are shrouded in mystery (and may involve a criminal act by Terri’s estranged husband), my daughter was left severely brain-damaged.

But before I go any further, I must put an end to the lies and misinformation that are circulating around the country through the media concerning my daughter’s condition.

Contrary to anything you may have heard, Terri is NOT brain dead; Terri is NOT in a coma; she is NOT in a “persistent vegetative state;” nor is she on ANY life-support system.

Terri Schiavo responds to her mother’s touch Terri laughs, Terri cries, she moves, and she makes child-like attempts at speech with her mother and me. Sometimes she will say “Mom” or “Dad” or “yeah” when we ask her a question. When I kiss her hello or goodbye, she looks at me and “puckers up” her lips.

This may not seem like much to you, but it means everything to Terri’s mother and me. It tells us she is still here, she still knows us, and with therapy and time she can have some level of recovery.

I know that there are some hard hearted people who believe that due to my daughters condition, she is better off dead. Words cannot describe the pain and anger such sentiments cause us. This is our daughter, our little girl, and even in her disabled condition, she still has the right to life and the right to be loved and cared for by her family.

Why, you may ask, is Terry in danger of death by starvation?

It is a long and outrageous story, but I’ll give it to you as briefly as I can.

After the “incident” that left Terry in this condition, her husband Michael Schiavo sued various members of the medical community for money, saying that they did not treat or diagnose her properly at an early stage, and that he needed this money to provide for Terri’s therapy and rehabilitation and care.

After lengthy court battles, he finally won upwards of $1.7 million under the guise of caring for our daughter, and then to our horror, he immediately began spending the money on himself and his Playboy lifestyle.

Terri’s estranged husband Michael Schiavo has been living with another woman for years, and has two children by her. He is determined to see Terri dead. Why? We believe it’s because he gets to keep whatever money is left… and he may have even darker motives than that.

To add insult to all of this injury toward my daughter, Michael Schiavo is still her “legal husband” and therefore is her “guardian.” And since they are not legally divorced, he controls whatever health care she will and will not get. We are not even allowed to know if she is getting aspirin.

In 1993 my family initiated litigation against Michael Schiavo solely for the purpose of acquiring medical, physical and neurological assistance for our daughter Terri. The litigation escalated in 1998 when Michael Schiavo petitioned the court to stop Terri from receiving food and water, thereby starving her to death.

In filing this legal action, he retained the services of a high profile euthanasia attorney and the financial backing of powerful euthanasia organizations. He also used Terri’s medical rehabilitation money to underwrite much of the legal expenses associated with his effort to starve our daughter to death.

We know that he has spent nearly $500,000 of Terri’s money in attorney’s fees for just one attorney trying to obtain a court order to have Terri starved to death. The very money that was supposed to be used for Terri’s rehabilitation is being used to have her killed.

We very quickly discovered it was impossible for us to compete with the abundance of financial and legal resources the pro-death organizations were providing Micheal Schiavo in their effort to kill Terri. They are pouring time and effort into her starvation because they want to use this case to further the agenda of legalized euthanasia.

My wife and I are not wealthy people. Throughout those years, we did not have any large organizations trying to help rescue our daughter. Consequently, we had to rely on the generosity of attorneys who were willing to offer their legal expertise at no cost or at reduced fees.

The bottom line is that we are in the final weeks or months of our struggle to rescue our daughter from an untimely death by starvation. Death by starvation is very slow, and extremely painful. As you must know, it is against the law to deliberately starve an animal to death. There are members of the Florida court who would not treat a dog the way they plan to treat my daughter.

At this point we must pull out all the stops in our fight to rescue our daughter.

As parents, we are desperate to save our daughter’s life. As people who love life, we are determined to deprive the euthanasia advocates of successfully legalizing this form of homicide. We believe that their efforts to kill Terri are designed to set a precedent for the future eradication of defenseless disabled human beings. I was alive when Americans fought the Nazis; I do not want my daughter to meet the same fate of thousands of disabled people in Nazi Germany, and I do not want our country to go down that same dark path.

By J. Morris

March 16, 2005 04:06 PM | Link to this

It’s not desperation that drives some of us to name-calling, it’s exasperation.

Zack doesn’t need the Crusades - he’s just a few steps shy of becoming the next Eric Rudolph, killing evildoers in the name of the Lord.

By Bruce

March 16, 2005 04:08 PM | Link to this

B.C.

Are you trying to tell me that trees do not have a purpose? That I am only assuming that flowers and birds and fish do not have purpose? I don’t know if EVERYTHING has a purpose but I have never seen anything that doesn’t. If you don’t what living things, how about cars or stairs or the roof over your house. Those things have purpose. I’m at a loss here I didn’t know that my only purpose was to pro-create. Vincent’s last post give some other purposes to human life. What about those?

You guys are failing in making me understand. I want to but so far the Bible has you beat.

By Jack

March 16, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this

Big Brother PLEASE make Tony stop with the cutting and pasting. If you can’t or won’t type it, DON’T POST IT! Lazy, lazy, lazy.

By Tim

March 16, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this

Tony… I do truly feel for the parents of Terri… but whoever wrote that letter is not telling the truth… she is in the state she is in not from something her husband did… it was caused be a chemical imbalance from an eating disorder… really sad that now people are saying she may be this way because of something her husband did to her… good grief

By norman

March 16, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this

I don’t know what did Terri Schiavo in. But I do know that there are radical pro-life websites out there with all sorts of horror stories made up to attack anyone who does not toe the full pro-life line. You could call them “Catholics and Evangelicals on Behalf of Lies.”

By Tony

March 16, 2005 04:24 PM | Link to this

Jack, Information is essential to posting an opinion. Early this morning I posted in error. After reading and obtaining information about this case, I have learned a new perspective concerning Terri’s predicament. I can and will post information concerning this topic, for the benefit of others who wish to learn about this case. If you don’t want to read it, simply ignore it.

By Jack

March 16, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this

Why don’t you post a whole book Tony, then we can all ignore it.

By lozen

March 16, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this

Bruce, how do you know a tree has purpose? The bible does not say “The chemical process of photosynthesis takes place in the tree changing carbon dioxide to oxygen and cleaning the air for humans so thou shalt not cut down all the trees.” Why? Because the people living and writing the bible so long ago did not know about photosynthesis or geology or gravity or any science.

By lozen

March 16, 2005 04:47 PM | Link to this

It would be nice if the bible did say, “thou shalt not cut down all the trees”. Just as it would be nice if the bible said, “Thou shalt not buy and sell other human beings.” How about “thou shalt not abandon your children to eight hours of television a day?” That’s why we have to think for ourselves Bruce.

By JohnR

March 16, 2005 04:51 PM | Link to this

Bruce,

Again, what is your purpose? What does the Bible say your purpose is?

Trees use carbon dioxide to create food for themselves, the by-product of this is oxygen, without trees we would die. I am assuming that you believe that trees have a purpose based on keeping us alive, and that they and all things in nature exist for our benefit. I believe that trees are trees, and the fact that they sustain the eco-sphere keeps me alive, much in the same way that my act of exhaling keeps them alive, nothing more. However; our interdependency satisfies our mutual goals of maintaining and flourishing our species respectively. No more, No less.

you can search for a purpose in your life, that’s what philosophy, art, religion, society are all about, giving reason to fact. It’s what we all do everyday - try to rationalize our existance, it’s a game we play with ourselves like posting on this site.

By Jack

March 16, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this

There really only needs to be one commandment, thou shall do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (someone said this in a previous post a couple of weeks ago. It makes sense.)

By Jack

March 16, 2005 04:57 PM | Link to this

JohnR. Your posts are a breath of fresh air.

By lozen

March 16, 2005 05:06 PM | Link to this

Imagine getting in a time machine and going back to meet one of the writers of the bible. What kind of conversation would you have? You couldn’t talk about medicine, science, the discovery of the new world, democracy, electricity, mass production, airplanes, steam ships, trains, the industrial age, Martin Luther King, Jr, communism, Hitler, the rise of the catholic church, the pope, the rise of the protestant church, the civil rights movement, or the women’s movement. You couldn’t talk about 30-story buildings, the King James bible or China. He would have no idea what you were talking about. He would be an ignorant, superstitious man slitting the throats of sheep as a sacrifice to his god.

By chuck

March 16, 2005 06:06 PM | Link to this

Excuse me Jack, but you did say that I would not answer the question about whether or not I had a living will because it would show me to be a hypocrite.

hypocrite

n : a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he does not hold [syn: dissembler, phony, phoney, pretender]

In other words, someone who is inconsistent.

By norman

March 17, 2005 07:33 AM | Link to this

Happy St. Patrick’s Day!

Even the Irish are beginning to stop faithful attendance at Mass. Europe is becoming resolutely post-Christian, thank God!

Can America be far behind?

By Tony

March 17, 2005 07:36 AM | Link to this

Tim, The letter I posted was from Terri Schiavo website. The Father believes that not all is as it would appear. The allegations may be nothing but a Fathers pain and outburst. But nevertheless, he believes something maybe astray. I just posted the letter to give this forum an idea of how Robert and Mary Schindler feel. My original post on this matter was that I wouldn’t want to live if I where as Terri is, but after reading and learning more about her condition I since have changed my opinion about her situation. Tim, something about all this, about Michael’s (Terri’s husband) actions that just leave me to believe he is well not acting in a humane way towards his wife. Why not allow therapy? Some believe with the proper therapy she may be able to communicate. She might very well be able to feed herself. I know she will never aspire to be like she was, but visit her website, or go to euthanasia.com and learn more about the facts and maybe you too will have a different perspective.

By Randy

March 17, 2005 08:03 AM | Link to this

When reading the posts of the non-Christians here, especially Norman, if I ever murder someone and they have great evidence against me, like a camera on me at the time, I want Norman on my jury. He has a way of totally reversing the facts and I should be found innocent. Unfortunately, like in Scott Peterson’s trial, where they had to get rid of 2 jurors, the judge would probably get rid of Norman(can’t see the forest for the trees). Also, I notice where in reading posts from the last two weeks, that Norman stopped posting for a week after someone described him as a person who still lived at home with his mother and never gets a date. That didn’t hit home did it Normie.

By norman

March 17, 2005 08:04 AM | Link to this

Don’t plan on having an accident in Florida. The Christian bigots there will keep you alive to suffer while they parade their love for you and their tyrannical god of vengeance.

By Bruce

March 17, 2005 08:07 AM | Link to this

JohnR,

Thanks for proving my point. As I said all things have purpose. They may not be outlined in the Bible as Lozen wants them to be but they do have purpose. Now can we find what purpose keeping Terri Schiavo alive might be? I cannot answer that but I do believe there is a purpose. Like I said I can see both sides of this situtation but the more I think about it I believe God has the power to end her live just as He gave it to her. Therefore there has to be a purpose for her still being alive. Although her physical state may not be what WE think it should be we must try to be as compassionate as possible. Letting someone starve to death sounds so cruel, don’t you think?

Then again I am just a simple country boy and who listens to anyone that is not within the Atlanta area anyway.

By Tony

March 17, 2005 08:10 AM | Link to this

New medical evidence.

Anderson said Hammesfahr’s testimony about the “suspiciously rigid neck” in last month’s trial prompted her to undertake a new examination of the “mountain” of Terri’s medical records. The search uncovered the report of a total-body bone scan done at Manatee Memorial Hospital in Bradenton, Fla., in March 1991, 13 months after her collapse.

The report notes a compression fracture of her thigh “which is presumably traumatic.”

Other “areas of nuclide accumulation of intense type,” or “hot spots” as they’re called, are suggestive of fractures in her ribs, the first lumbar vertebra and several thoracic vertebrae, both sacroiliac joints, and both knees and ankles.

The report states, “The patient has a history of trauma.” Physicians who reviewed the report at the request of Anderson conclude Terri was the victim of severe physical abuse.

In testimony given during the 2000 trial, Terri’s girlfriend and co-worker said Terri discussed getting a divorce and moving in with her. She also testified that the couple had a violent argument on the day of Terri’s collapse, which prompted her to urge Terri to not stay at home that night – a suggestion Terri disregarded.

“There are only two people who know what happened that night that she collapsed. And one of them is trying to kill the other who is too disabled to speak,” Anderson told WND at the commencement of the trial last month.

In her motion, Anderson also took issue with swallowing tests allegedly being performed recently on Terri at the hospice where she is residing and not being reported.

“If, for example, Terri successfully demonstrated a swallowing ability on four occasions and these results were deliberately withheld from Terri’s parents and her attending physician, these facts would indicate a deliberate plan to withhold evidence that Terri is not dependent on a feeding tube and could be spoon-fed and, thus, is not a death candidate by any reading of Florida law,” Anderson argued.

By Randy

March 17, 2005 08:12 AM | Link to this

On posts from non-christians, I don’t know much about Buddists, Hindus etc. Why, I don’t feel a need to know anything about those areas, they don’t threaten me. But, Norman and the rest of you non-Christians have spent months and months on this forum that I know of, fighting against something that doesn’t exist(according to you). Norman has quoted atheist after atheist(while offering no real proof) and if he would put this kind of effort into a job, he would probably still have one and not have to live with his mother, he might even get a date. The point here is WHY DO YOU ALL FEEL THE NEED TO FIGHT AGAINST CHRISTIANITY, SHOULDN’T IT BE NON-THREATENING TO YOU? Like all the other religions are to me, Christianity being threatening to you, should TELL YOU SOMETHING.

By norman

March 17, 2005 08:13 AM | Link to this

Randy: you should become a Muslim.

By Lyrazel

March 17, 2005 08:15 AM | Link to this

Terri Schiavo responds to her mother’s touch Terri laughs, Terri cries, she moves, and she makes child-like attempts at speech with her mother and me. Sometimes she will say “Mom� or “Dad� or “yeah� when we ask her a question. When I kiss her hello or goodbye, she looks at me and “puckers up� her lips.

Excuse me? This is a fabrication of truth! Fact is she breathes puffs and her mother interpretes this. Why are these kindly right of life people protesting the judge of this case with death threats? THAT has been verified! Note no mention, of it. Right to lifers can be so kind in their persuasion tecniques. Its ok to kill for gods will be done, isnt it?

We know that he has spent nearly $500,000 of Terri’s money—excuse me? Terry has been in a coma for 15 years. Now what has SHE DONE to generate that income? Its not HER MONEY! For one it is THEIR money! Second, after 8 years, 1.7 million does not go far with hospital costs! No doubt his playboy lifestyle was spent paying bills, like therapy, like medical doctors, a hospital room, medications, IV drips, and the plethora of costs that mount like a bath for a comatose person is about $200.00. His playboy lifestyle—no, no playboy devotes 15 years to a wife in a coma!!

My wife and I are not wealthy people. Yep. so that money, Terrys money, did not come from them as inheritance. Maybe their motives of hiring lawyer after lawyer cant be questioned, HOWEVER given their modest lifestyle will they have enough money to provide her with proper medical care? Or will they have to sue again? Does she go on medicaid? What about their senior citizen care? What happens to her when they become unable to care for her?

Tony, dont you think, after 15 years, MS could have just divorced his wife taken the rest of the money and let the parents have her care? Dont you think he would have withdrawn to his playboy mansion and let the corpse of his ex-wife continue its existance with the help of machinery—that he took on the aggravation because he loved her cannot be a possibility?

Second, you DO NOT KNOW what kind of therapy she received. You are not a doctor and the doctors on this case are not commenting! Maybe that non-care therapy he did came at recomendations of her doctors—small things like throat massage, finger massage and rolling…what do you expect, put her on a walker and see if she responds? Third, that reference to nazi germany is ludicrous as is the methods of her cruel and unusual death. Note how EVERYONE uses nazi germany as an excuse for something else? They should have used American Mentaly Insane Hospitals from 1900-1962…I would have believed more!

By Randy

March 17, 2005 08:17 AM | Link to this

Talking to Norman is like dealing with a spoiled rotten child. He just wants attention. If you will dress up in a clowns suit Norman, you will get alot more attention and it would suit you to a tee.

By Randy

March 17, 2005 08:23 AM | Link to this

Really Norman plays all the non-Christians for fools, he looks at something that is green and calls it white, with you all looking right at it. He is probably laughing at the non-christians and saying look what I’m telling them and they are buying it, this thing is green and they are looking right at it and I’m telling them it’s white. NO, I’m wrong, he has said the Green thing is white so many times, he believes it himself. So now he is the fool.

By Brian Curtis

March 17, 2005 08:37 AM | Link to this

Randy: Perhaps the non-Christians argue with Christians because it’s only Christianity that seems to be constantly on the attack.

I’ve never heard any Jews, Moslems, or Buddhists on this site claiming that everyone should be converted to THEIR faith, or that we need to rewrite our laws in accordance with THEIR beliefs and impose them on all nonbelievers. Only Christians do that.

Only Christians stubbornly oppose any science that seems to contradict their cherished “holy book” (overlooking its spiritual purpose), to the point of attacking science and education itself. Only Christians have the gall to declare, “I don’t think atheists should even be considered Americans” or “To be un-Christian is to be un-American.” Only Christians have displayed that level of intolerance, contempt, and pure seething hatred for all those who disagree.

Not Buddhists. Not Jews. Not even American Moslems. For every faith and viewpoint but Christianity “live and let live” seems to be a workable option. It’s only Christians who can’t allow others to believe and think as we choose, instead whining that their faith needs government endorsement and support; that their faith needs special initiatives to channel funding to them; that their faith is just soooo special that there should be a monument to it in every public building and schoolchildren should be forced to pray to their god every morning.

Asking why non-Christians focus their arguments on Christianity is kind of like asking why the Minutemen focused all their hostility at the British.

You may now resume your personal obsession of firing insults at Randy. You benevolent, compassionate Christian, you.

By Lyrazel

March 17, 2005 08:38 AM | Link to this

Randy, hush. We all know YOU dont like norman. So what? You are always at the top for bashing norman, who seems quite able to handle himself in any argument without resorting to name calling and childish tirades as you have done on many instances. You believe and have faith. Fine. Norman wont ever be able to persuade you from it even when he uses scripture to prove a point. Is that what angers you most? That he uses scripture to prove fallacy argument? Give it a rest, please?

By Tony

March 17, 2005 08:47 AM | Link to this

It’s real simple Lyrazel. Therapy. Therapy to see if Terri can swallow. You can claim fabircation all you wish. If Terri can swallow, no one can KILL her!

By Lyrazel

March 17, 2005 08:55 AM | Link to this

So you feel Terrys husband has no claim at all as to the welfare of his wife?

By Kenneth

March 17, 2005 09:02 AM | Link to this

Although I am not a regular poster here (obviously), I have been following these discussions with some amusement and trepidation. Just so you know where I’m coming from, the person whose religious views most closely match mine is norman. Like Wiley and some of you others, I would fear for my life if I was in a room alone with Zack, or even Randy.

I live in the Philadelphia area, where we’ve been following the Terri Schiavo case closely. My opinion on this is: She’s dead. Removing the feeding tube will only shut down the body. However, like our columnist John Grogan, I have some reservations about letting Michael Schiavo do it. Not because of the “other woman” (what’s he supposed to do, wait forever to get on with his life) or the money (there won’t be any left after all the medical bills and lawyer’s fees are paid) but simply because this case has dragged on too long and whatever feelings he once had for Terri have evaporated.

I believe the only reason he wants Terry dead now is simply to make her parents suffer. Unfortunately, the Schindlers appear to be just as bad. Their stories about their daughter’s so-called “responsiveness” may’ve started out as wishful thinking, but it’s now degenerated into attempts to make their son-in-law look like the bad guy.

In short, these are people who have become blinded by their mutual hatred for each other. I think Terri should be declared a ward of the state (or the courts, as the case may be) since neither her parents or her husband are fit guardians for her.

Anyone else agree with me on this one?

By Jack

March 17, 2005 09:04 AM | Link to this

This blog ALWAYS ends up talking religion no matter WHAT the subject. Zack & Randy’s ILK give Christians a bad reputation with their attitude. Lozen, RS, Lyrazel, Whiley, love you all! Norm keep up the good work stirring the pot. I’ll visit the blog once a week or so. Take care.

By Lyrazel

March 17, 2005 09:12 AM | Link to this

kenneth, I agree only to a point that the prejudice against Michael is so strong because some people want to paint him as some rabid fanatic intent to kill his wife…takes a lot of love for a woman to have persued this case for so long. Of all the people I would want to be there as my life ends would be my husband…my parents…to have put me through this…need to be forgiven by god…because I could not.

I dont think anyone is blinded except the fanatics who are sending death threats…

Welcome to the fray, btw.

By Noelia

March 17, 2005 09:15 AM | Link to this

I guess not we can starve people to death. He just wants to go on with his life and the only way he could do it is to get rid of her. Ladie listen up you better put this stuff in write because you can come out like her. You husband can treat you worst than a dog he can starve you. I just hope he can hear and see her everytime he kisses his so called new wife. She better hope he doesn’t do the same to her.

By Randy

March 17, 2005 09:19 AM | Link to this

Kenneth is really Norman. Norman does that when he has to tuck his head down in the sand. Which is quite often.

By Kenneth

March 17, 2005 09:20 AM | Link to this

Thanks, Lyrazel, however, because I have things to do, I will not be hanging around all day, but will come back to check on things later. I’ve found you to be one of the more sensible posters here.

By Kenneth

March 17, 2005 09:25 AM | Link to this

Sorry to disappoint you, Randy, but you’re wrong once again. Which is quite often.

By RS

March 17, 2005 09:27 AM | Link to this

Jack: Love you too! I sure do always enjoy your posts! Welcome, Kenneth. I agree with most of what you said but I fear that by making the-breathing-corpse-formerly-known-as-Terri-Schiavo a ward of the state, us taxpayers will have to foot the bill for keeping her? it/ “alive”. The parents want her alive? Fine. Then they should be awarded full custody & take on the care & feeding w/out getting the state/taxpayers involved. I do feel sad for the parents; they’re grasping at straws. What they’re seeing are muscle spasms; maybe glorified ones, but muscle spasms all the same. She will NEVER get out of that bed & lead a productive life. It’s over for that poor woman. I personally think it’s more humane to release her from her uh, “life”. All life (?!?) is NOT precious. I myself would not want to be trpped in a useless shell of a body & put such a horrific burden on others. As long as her parents have false hopes, they will never have the peace of mind that closure brings. As for her husband; ok, I deplore cheating butin his case, he no longer has a viable marriage. He is a widower in everything but name. For goodness sake, the man has every right to get on with his life! He’s been shackled to that unfortunate creature for years; he’s done more than enough for her

By Randy

March 17, 2005 09:29 AM | Link to this

Jack, It’s OK for some of the non-christians to attack the Christians(like Norman) but if we say anything, we are giving Christians a bad name. Well Jack, I am a christian, but I am not a saint. I am not going to take it, you attack me, I’ll fight back. If Norman wanted to keep this civil, he needs to be civil. Some of the things he says about Christians are unbelievable(I know thousands of Christians and none act in any way he describes). All the Christians I know, are the salt of the earth, great family people, people I would trust my life or fortune with, etc. Are they perfect, No way, who is. But they deserve respect and Norman shows none, so he gets none.

By Lyrazel

March 17, 2005 09:37 AM | Link to this

Noelia, go read some facts about the case…if you can find FACTS…find a hospice. Severing life support is hardly putting someone in a cage like a dog and not feeding them. That, has been the OFFERED VIEW given by fanatics who are also sending death threats to the judge. Go ask a hospice doctor how they handle death situations of someone being taken off life support. Its done with more dignity than you would think, with kindness and compassion.

Randy, everyone is norman! Im norman, you are norman, boscoe and whiley are norman, even terry is norman, why shaunti and diane are actually norman, everyone is norman…aint it fun?

By Brian Curtis

March 17, 2005 09:43 AM | Link to this

Norman: Congratulations; you have completely neutralized Randy.

He’s now incapable of responding to anyone without accusing them of “being Norman.” His every post centers on you; he’s become your most obsessive, stalker-type fan. Randy is now 100% Norman-ized. Way to go!

Seriously, Randy: take a breath. Have a cool drink, maybe take a walk. Life doesn’t have to be All About Norman.

By J. Morris

March 17, 2005 09:47 AM | Link to this

For all of the people who keep saying that the husband is trying to have the tube removed - he has never made that decision. He instead requested that the court make the decision, to remove the tube or not remove the tube, for him. The COURT reviewed the evidence and ordered that the tube be removed.

All the people calling him a monster conveniently overlook or ignore this fact.

By RS

March 17, 2005 10:11 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel, you are right. I used to have neighbour who worked at a hospice & he explained to me what they do there. The patients & their families are treated with a great deal of kindness, respect, compassion & dignity; he himself is representative of the type of person who’d treat others in such a lovely manner.

By Gwen

March 17, 2005 10:16 AM | Link to this

I have never posted here but have read much many of the others over the past few weeks. In my opinion, everyone’s positions are somewhat discredited when the only way you can express it is to attack others.

Randy, I am a Christian. You and I probably agree on most of the positions. However, you and I do not agree on the method of articulating our positions. You attack others as freely and willfully as others attack you. I would prefer to confront you as a fellow believer in the manner that the Bible dictates (Matthew 18). But that is not possible so I do so here in this forum.

May I remind you of a few verses:

Matthew 5
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ [39] But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also… [43] “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ [44] But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

1 Peter 3:13-17 Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? [14] But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, [15] but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; [16] yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. [17] For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil.

Randy, you mentioned that most Christians you know are salt of the earth. We certainly are called to be that. However, Jesus also warns of salt losing its “saltiness” and thus becoming useless. Our weapons are not of this world. When we become like the world, we loose are “saltiness”. We become like everyone else. Stand up for the truth. Fight passionately for what you believe. However, do so in a way that is respectful of others (even those that do not show you respect). We are on the same side. I appreciate your zeal, just not always your manner.

By J. Morris

March 17, 2005 10:59 AM | Link to this

Gwen, while I appreciate your sentiment, I find your implication that poor Randy is just reacting to others attacking him galling.

You know, I would have absolutely no reason to “attack” fundamentalist Christianity if it weren’t attacking me first. I am happy for people to believe and worship however they choose. However, when those people decide it’s time to tell me that I’m going to hell, or to continually tell me how evil I am, and then attempt to create laws that specifically discriminate against me, then the gloves are off.

The fundamentalists in this country have been on the attack for as long as I can remember - they go after anything and everything that doesn’t fit into their narrow definition of the world. So, if I or someone else comes across a little harshly, we have a damn good reason.

I find it very difficult to care if I am rude to people like Randy, since they are so very unconcerned about treating me decently or even acknowledging my humanity.

Rant off - back to the topic.

By lozen

March 17, 2005 11:03 AM | Link to this

Irrational religious anger demands a target. Randy has chosen Norman as his target. There is so much fear and negativity just under the surface in fundamentalism. I know this from experience; I grew up with it all around me. People whose only security in life is rooted in a literal bible, are not happy when facts challenge their biblical understanding. And for biblical literalists, there is always an enemy to be defeated in mortal combat. *Onward Christian Soldiers!” And there’s always the devil to take the blame for any bad behavior. Remember Jimmy Swaggart who got caught in a New Orleans hotel with a hooker? He said he was turning so many people to christ thru his preaching that the devil came after his and lured him into a trap! The devil made him do it! And his followers believed him; he’s still getting money to cry on tv!! But if it’s not the devil or some other church group, then religious liberals, secular modernists, or God denying communists/socialists become the enemy. Irrational religious anger demands a target.

By Crystal

March 17, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this

Happy St. Patrick’s Day, the celebration of a great Christian. America is proud of its Irish, its Christians and its freedom for all. Come join in the joy of the day. It is there for everyone.

By Gwen

March 17, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this

J. Morris, I apologize for any confusion in my post. I actually meant to confront Randy on not only the way he often reacts to others remarks, but also the way he initiates name calling, etc. My remarks to him would have been better if they were made privately, but I could not figure a way to do that.

I think debating issues is a great (it can even be enjoyable!), but surely we can all treat each other with respect.

By J. Morris

March 17, 2005 11:15 AM | Link to this

Hmm. Except for the people deemed unworthy to join the parades.

By Janet

March 17, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this

I’ve been reading this site for about 6 weeks now, and post occasionally. I consider myself a follower of Christ. That being said, I find myself more offended by the post made by Randy. Your pitbull views on Christianity remind me of when I first move to the small town I live in. I was informed by the preacher’s son, “I’m a Christian, and if you don’t believe it I’ll kick your a**!” I’m sure the love Christ showed was in there somewhere…. I just couldn’t find it. Norman & JMorris I appreciate your stances, for the most part they do make me think at things differently. I may not always agree with you, but I do appreciate the challenges your views bring. Gwen, God bless you…. I hope you can get through were others can not. And as to the topic at hand, as a nurse I agree that a feeding tube is not the same as a respirator. If she is breathing on her own, starving her to death is cruel. However, keeping someone alive by artificial means for years is just as cruel to the people that love that person. The swallow test should be done, and a determination made after it is complete.
As said before, by others, Get a Living Will and make your wishes known, not only to your partner but to anyone who may think they have a right to say what your wishes are.

By J. Morris

March 17, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this

Gwen, thank you for the clarification. I hope you will stick around - a voice of reason is a good thing for ALL us hotheads - me included.

By Vince

March 17, 2005 12:10 PM | Link to this

Let’s make this simple. Those not in favor of euthanasia ought to go to hospices and adopt those patients. Take the burden off the family. After all, you think its a bad thing. And, instead of shooting off the heads of doctors who perform abortions, each of you need to go to those clinics, greet the ladies, and legally adopt the baby they can’t have for whatever the reason. Oh, and the other remaining zealots need to go those pesky labs and offer to give your body as a home for those stem cells; you don’t want them to be used either, right?

And if you continue to preach,”no abortion, no euthanasia, and no stem cell research”, and you don’t adopt, carry to term, of care for the dying patient, you are nothing more heartless.

By RS

March 17, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this

Happy St. Patricks Day to you too, Crystal but don’t you think America should be proud of ALL its good citizens, even the Jewsih, Hindu, Buddhist, Pagan etc ones?

By RS

March 17, 2005 12:16 PM | Link to this

Vince: AMEN, MY BROTHER!!!!!! But you need to realize the ones you’re calling out of name will never walk the walk, although they are all too happy to talk the talk

By Lyrazel

March 17, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this

Yes, thanks to the Irish holed up in monestaries on remote islands. They saved christianity from fading into obscurity by their return to the mainland and rome. However drinking beer until spewing is hardly a credit to a saint, is it?

By RS

March 17, 2005 12:21 PM | Link to this

Ah, not just plain, ordinary beer, Lyrazel. GREEN beer. Nothing like green spew…

By Randy

March 17, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this

OK You guys have inspired me, I need to put my efforts and money where my mouth is. I’m sitting here typing on a stupid computer, while people are dying and going where they don’t want to go. My pledge is to help people find Jesus every chance I get and to pour in a 10 million (dollar)percent effort. I want to thank you for motivating me.

By J. Morris

March 17, 2005 12:28 PM | Link to this

OR you could actually do those things that Jesus told you to do - help the poor, shelter the needy, defend the helpless, etc.

That’s probably too much to ask though, isn’t it Randy. You would rather proselytize and convert the heathens rather than do anything that actually helps your fellow man.

By Sandy

March 17, 2005 12:38 PM | Link to this

Regarding the attack of Christians and Christianity, there are those of us who are not easily pegged into categories. I spend a lot of time and energy thinking about this, but do not proclaim any one faith. I believe that Christ existed, was a great humanitarian, and exemplified true compassion. Whether he rose from the dead, did or did not turn bread and wine into his body and blood, and died for my sins does not seem as relevent as his his compassion and unconditional love. He did not condemn, and according to the New Testament, the only times he showed real anger was when people used religion and faith to gain power to subject fellow human beings. As a former Cathololic, the hymn “They’ll know we are Christians by our Love is particularly poignant and powerful. But at some point some of us have questions about our faith; questions about whether there is any absolute, questions about whether one specific teaching can really cover all facets of spirituality. The work of living grinds us down and sometimes we look for comfort in preordained preconceptions. But perhaps it’s our discomfort that propels us and helps us to evolve to a higher level of understanding. Buddha said something to the effect of, do not believe in something because it is written in your holy books and told to you by someone else. You must examine each experience and try to determine whether it is beneficial and good to many people (indicating here that there is no one perfect way to be) and then accept it.

“Life is pain” is an accepted teaching in Buddhism. But so is change and circumstance. Going the middle way is what is prescribed, but this does not guarantee we will not feel the pain of living.

Pro-choicers are often perceived as having an indifference to life, but many see the access to choice as the middle way. It’s not perfect. There is no perfect. It would be nice if every pregnancy was wanted in the same way that every pregnancy was viable, but this is not the case. What is one person’s joy is another person’s pain. To negate the feelings of either situation is to deny our humanity. To assume that as imperfect people we can provide one solution is impossible. To assume that we can offer comfort to each other from the slings and arrows of life is not impossible.

Original sin is described as human beings daring to presume to be as great as God, condeming us until a savior came along. But if we are made in God’s image, assuming that this is not meant not superficially but deeply spiritually, couldn’t the original sin be that we forgot that we are part of God? That the metaphorical expulsion from Eden is because we decided that we are separate from God?

Multiple deities are used to express the complexity of being human, and if one studies comparitive religions and philosophies as well as mythology, there is an awful lot in common—perhaps the collective unconscious—

This is exhilarating and freeing; to insist that each of us zero in on one belief and spend endless hours parsing words, and to condemn others for not taking it as their own kills creation and hope. And I don’t think it pleases God.

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Depends on the dance…

As one intrigued by Taoism and Buddism, I can see how observation of the way things go in this world, no less relevent

By lozen

March 17, 2005 12:41 PM | Link to this

Randy, you haven’t been able to convert anyone on this site; what makes you think you’ll be able to do that anywhere else?

By J. Morris

March 17, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this

Sandy, you might be my new hero.

By lozen

March 17, 2005 12:51 PM | Link to this

Sandy, words of wisdom. Thank you. JMorris have you seen Big Eden?

By Crystal

March 17, 2005 12:51 PM | Link to this

America is proud of its freedom for ALL. St. Patrick was in the land of the Irish and he was a Christian. Since we are celebrating a day in his honor, we mention the Irish and Christians. (I don’t celebrate with beer because it has a taste like the smell of old socks.)

By Bruce

March 17, 2005 12:55 PM | Link to this

Gwen,

Thank you! I sometimes need a nudge in the right direction too. I am sure that if you hang around long enough you will need a gentle nudge also. I try my best to stay calm and respectful but there are times when I just lose control. We all do! It is small disagreements, left unchecked, that fester into great battles.

By J. Morris

March 17, 2005 12:55 PM | Link to this

lozen, Big Eden is one of my favorite movies!

By Lee

March 17, 2005 12:59 PM | Link to this

After reading the parent’s plea, I was wondering…

Do they have a living will? What does it say if one of them were in the same situation?

The letter leaves out a few things. It leaves out the part where Mr. Schiavo goes to nursing school to learn how to take care of his wife. He cared for her and put her through therapy for years hoping and waiting for her condition to improve.

Now, He says that she wished to not be kept alive in this condition. The parents say that she would want to live. It sounds more like the husband is fighting for his wife’s wishes to be granted. The parents sound more like they are fighting for religion than for the wishes of their daughter, because they have said that they would keep her alive even if her wishes were to be let go.

Let her wishes be granted.

By lozen

March 17, 2005 01:09 PM | Link to this

After a day on this blog, it’s a comfort to watch or just think about the love and caring expressed in Big Eden for me. I hope someday the world is really like that. And it is such a healing movie. I recommend it to everybody!

By Tony

March 17, 2005 01:09 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel, in the beginning I too agreed with you, that Terri should be allowed to die with dignity. I would not want to be kept alive if I where brain dead. However, since then, I’ve been researching and obtaining facts that do not agree with my first impression of this tragic case.

The information I’ve obtained changes things at least in my mind. First of all, Doctors on both sides disagree, (as always) 12 Doctors have signed affidavits about Terri’s PVS (persistent vegetative state) and believe she is not. They believe with Therapy, Terri’s quality of life will improve. Now, I know a lot of people on this forum will disagree with that, however, and more importantly, Terri’s family (i.e. Mother and Father) who will be responsible for Terri do.

Michael Schiavo is the legal guardian. The facts I obtained concerning Michael are disturbing. First of all in 1993 when Michael received the award, he quickly removed Terri from the Hospital and placed her in a nursing home. Soon after Michael petitioned the court for permission to have her feeding tube removed, claiming she is in a persistent vegetative state and would not want to be kept alive “artificially.” In the mean time, Michael has gone on with his life, has two children and is engaged. In addition, facts obtained concerning broken bones and a rigid neck have never been seriously investigated into whether or not Michael had anything to do with that. In 1993 Terri developed an infection. Michael refused treatment, however, the nursing home was obligated to treat her infection. Soon after Michael removed Terri from that nursing home to another, finally settling with Hospice.

Therapy will allow Terri to be independent of the feeding tube, thus allowing Terri to live, why prevent it?
Far too often today children are returned to abusive guardians with disastrous results. Everyday we read of another victim. If a cloud of suspicion hangs over Michael, the courts should take this into account.

Then the king said, “Bring me a sword.” So they brought a sword for the king. 25 He then gave an order: “Cut the living child in two and give half to one and half to the other.” 26 The woman whose son was alive was filled with compassion for her son and said to the king, “Please, my lord, give her the living baby! Don’t kill him!” But the other said, “Neither I nor you shall have him. Cut him in two!” 27 Then the king gave his ruling: “Give the living baby to the first woman. Do not kill him; she is his mother.”

By norman

March 17, 2005 01:11 PM | Link to this

One of the parade attenders here in Savannah this morning had a teeshirt which said: Patrick was saint, I ain’t no saint!

Don’t cry for me, Argentina! oops, I mean Atlanta!

Folks, I am flattered that Randy picks on me. I am the target frankly because I get to the root (radical comes from the Latin word for root) which is, not that some Christians are bad or intolerant, or that Jesus meant well, etc. The root I get to is: Christianity is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the human race. Randy know in me he has the ultimate enemy (no, I am not Satan, but the ultimate human enemy, a person who has seen through Christianity and knows it for what it is: self-deception and fraud.) Randy knows that if I am right (and I am) then he and his are fools, knaves, or both.

By J. Morris

March 17, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this

You know Tony, the question you should be asking yourself, if all the “facts” you have mentioned are true, is why DIDN’T the court take them into consideration?

By the way, I repeat that you are incorrect about Michael petitioning the court to have the tube removed - he put the question into the hands of the court and asked them to decide.

So the rational question is - What vested interest does the court have in ignoring these facts? What vested interest does the court have in ignoring the recommendations of the 12 doctors you mentioned?

Occam’s Razor tells us that the logical answer is that the court listened to all evidence and made its decision based on the full body of evidence presented.

By Vince

March 17, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this

Why not lets talk about issues that affect all of us… heathens and those with a daily direct conference call with God & Jesus. How about 9 billion tax payer dollars lost, not spent but actually lost in Iraq? Or, perhaps why Jeff Gannon gets no press, but Monica Lewinsky’s cigar/dress combo still gets press time? Or, maybe that 10,000 people are dying monthly in Darfur? (That’s worse than in Iraq under that evil - doer/ furriner) Or, why not talk about how easily it is for illegal immigrants to buy guns? The GOP’s stance on this issue is the US government has an obligation to protect civil rights. So, in the spirit of the NRA illegal immigrants can be weapons and natural born gay citizens cannot be legally married. Or, how about Bush’s Budget Busters have raised the national debt another 25.5 percent from 2003 to 2004? The highest in history. Or, lets chat about why in the heck the price of gas is soaring and nobody seems to notice? Is it because a failed Texas Oil Man is now president and his folks don’t want us to notice what is right in front of us?

By Vince

March 17, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this

Why not lets talk about issues that affect all of us… heathens and those with a daily direct conference call with God & Jesus. How about 9 billion tax payer dollars lost, not spent but actually lost in Iraq? Or, perhaps why Jeff Gannon gets no press, but Monica Lewinsky’s cigar/dress combo still gets press time? Or, maybe that 10,000 people are dying monthly in Darfur? (That’s worse than in Iraq under that evil - doer/ furriner) Or, why not talk about how easily it is for illegal immigrants to buy guns? The GOP’s stance on this issue is the US government has an obligation to protect civil rights. So, in the spirit of the NRA illegal immigrants can buy weapons and natural born gay citizens cannot be legally married. Or, how about Bush’s Budget Busters have raised the national debt another 25.5 percent from 2003 to 2004? The highest in history. Or, lets chat about why in the heck the price of gas is soaring and nobody seems to notice? Is it because a failed Texas Oil Man is now president and his folks don’t want us to notice what is right in front of us?

By Lyrazel

March 17, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this

Tony, it is common for terminally ill patients to be placed in a nursing home from hospital stay. Since 1993, Michaels wife has been comatose, in a hospital bed and as compassionate as you are, wasnt that long enough time to have brought out these new/old claims by doctors? Where were they between 1996-2001? Question, were they involved in the case at all or were these 12 doctors new hired consultants…courtesy of the religious organizations now offering funds to the parents? I do not know either. Sometimes keeping up with current events becomes a full time effort.

You say Michael is legal guardian, true…but….He is her husband. Doublespeak seldom works with me—and why, did he not take the money and run when he got the 1.7 mil? No, he paid bills, court costs, keeping up her care and quite possibly he has spent more hours praying to god for answers, for hope than anyone connected to this case. Why must those who side for the parents turn him into some philandering playboy jerk, or is that how they expect to win public sentiment with declarations of a found enemy? Like his evil mistress? Why is he not taking offers of money being offered? Is it so difficult to believe that he really does love this woman? To me, he has proven his love by staying with their belief, that suffering on earth should be end for her with peace and quiet love. You say therapy. Yes, if she can swallow. She swallows…then what? ExactIy what do they consider QUALITY OF LIFE? Is her condition going to drastically improve? No and thats been the judgment of her doctors from 1996 and through 2005…are her parents, really capable of providing longterm care? She will still be confined to a bed in a nursing home with a bevy of healthcare workers providing baths, changing iV and other hospital care—but she is brain dead and wont dance, wont sing, wont hear a bird chirp on her window and wont ever be able to do anything but lie there as a full care medical patient.

It is hideous how the media has mangled this woman, her marriage, her parents, doctors—what happens next year? Where were they from 1993-2001? When the tv cameras go away…she will still be in a bed without chance of recovery. Why must a media circus be made of this womans suffering? I am appalled; arent you?

PS Norman…I get tired of drivelers…never gonna nor intend to fight your battles, dude…stop by Dr. Bs Muthers for GREAT BBQ!! (in garden city)

By Debora

March 17, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this

Do anyone here REALLY HONESTLY care if they remove this lady’s feeding tube or not? Personally, it is not my problem. I have my own life to concern myself with. I however, do think it sucks that people like Shaunti, who don’t even know the people involved, make such cruel and judgmental statements about a man they don’t even know. 15 years? He deserves a life as well.

By Archie

March 17, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this

I think in some cases euthansia may be useful so my answer is yes euthansia should be legalized in the case of terminal illness but it is tough issue and one that should be handled with utmost care. I would want to be kept alive as long as possible in case my body responds as some people respond after a number of years but then someone that’s nearly 100 years old may not have the same strength as someone younger. Bottom line is I don’t know what the correct answer is all the time but my answer to the topic is yes.

By Kenneth

March 17, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this

I just got back to check this forum, and I’d like to respond to what RS said earlier. I agree with you that making her a ward of the state is not the best solution, especially since the state (i.e., Jeb Bush) wants to keep her “alive” when she is merely existing. But there are no winners here— LEAST of all Terri Schiavo. I stand by my original statement in wanting to take custody away from BOTH her parents and her husband because none of them has her interests at heart— at least not any longer. An adversarial legal system combined with the parties’ complete inability to compromise has turned this into a contest to see who can hurt each other the most. It’s all about revenge now, and their using that poor shell of a woman just to take their swipes at each other. For that reason alone I find both Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers despicable. A pox on all of them.

By RS

March 17, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

I agree, Debora. WHY is this poor man being lambasted when he’s spent 15 years tied to something that’s not even a viable person anymore? He has stuck with her, fought her battles, paid her monumental bills & now he’s being reviled because he wants normal love & companionship just like anyone else?? Really, I fail to see where being a compassionate human being & having a loving relationship constitute a “playboy lifestyle”.

By lozen

March 17, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this

And if we’re going to talk about what’s really important, what about ripping apart the Alaska wilderness and destroying the habitat for animals there for a few hundred gallons of oil? That oil will run out too, but the wilderness there can never be replaced. Why aren’t we researching new ways of energy? Oh, yeah our President is an oil man. And it’s hard to put a price on solar energy or wind energy.

By Debora

March 17, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this

I bet Nichols won’t even get 15 years

By RS

March 17, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this

Kenneth, I’m thinking her parents are so deep into denial/wishful thinking that they not only believe she’ll recover but they also have deluded themselves into thinking they want her kept alive because they have her best interests at heart. Uh, no, what would be in that poor thing’s best interests is to let her go. If she’s to be made a ward of the state, the outcome of that decision would depend on WHICH state…let’s hope it’s not Florida. Norman was absolutely correct when he cautioned against having a debilitating accident there due to the fact that the so-called “Christian” fascist bigots in power will pray for you while keeping you “alive” to suffer, and rationalizing their sadism by blaming it on their vengeful, fire-and-brimstone perception on what THEY feel God is all about

By RS

March 17, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

Debora, I bet you’re right. I also bet if he were 17 years & 11 months old, he’d have gotten off with nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

By norman

March 17, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this

The House of Representatives cannot pass a sensible budget, cannot save Medicaid or Medicare, but it can interfere with Floriga’s high court and get involved in the Sciavo case — to cause more suffering, more confusion, and more hypocrisy — all for the sake of catering to the fascist Christians.

Sham indeed!

By Lee

March 17, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this

A great unbiased opinion is found at

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

This site shows the FACTS

By Bruce

March 17, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this

Lozen,

How do you know those folks that wrote the Bible do not know about airplanes and tall building and such?

I for one would love to here first hand accounts of things like the Great Flood, or King David. What about Jesus turning the water into wine, or walking on water? Paul’s ministry, or what happened to the whole day and a few hours that scientist turn to the Bible to explain?

Imagine, talking to someone that was actually there, an eye witness, or maybe even those people themselves. Wouldn’t that be great? Would it make a believer out of you then?

By J. Morris

March 17, 2005 04:28 PM | Link to this

Oh yes…I’m sure that the world-is-flat primitives who first put charred stick to papyrus and wrote out Genesis had a firm grasp of both the General and Special theories of Relativity…heck, they probably even had a GUT that they decided not to share with us.

By Lee

March 17, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this

Oops, silly “post” button.

A great unbiased opinion is found at

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

This site shows the FACTS of the case. The part I read was the Report by the Guardian ad litem (GAL) who reported to Governor Bush. His findings were that the court cases have followed the law, and that the results were rightly upheld on appeal. The decisions to remove the feeding tube were made with full knowledge of arguments from both sides. It is the Schindler’s side which has changed their argument with each failure.

There is no evidence of abuse by the husband. In fact, his strong actions to care for her most likely attributed to the fact that Terri has lived longer than any other person in the persistent vegetative state.

It does appear that Terri’s wishes were found and granted by the Florida courts, and it is the family’s appeals that have kept her wishes from being granted, not the court’s.

By Zack

March 17, 2005 04:31 PM | Link to this

I wonder if Norman acts in real life the way he acts on here. I’ve wondered if his day goes something like this:

Norman: “Can you deliver my pizza in half an hour?” Employee: “No, sir.” N: “You fascist!!”

N: “Mind if I take Friday off?” Boss: “Yes, I do mind.” N (at the water cooler): “That man’s a fascist!”

However, the name-calling by Norman isn’t limited to him. As you can see, his left-leaning buddies generally do the same thing. I’ve noticed Jack and J. Morris are quick to pull the name trigger also, and Whiley, all of a sudden, has come out of nowhere and has gotten more desperate and extreme than any of them.

I have a question for those who defend euthanasia: If you think it can be rationalized, what would you NOT say could be rationalized? In other words, if someone really didn’t like tall people and wound up killing one, if he tried and tried hard enough to rationalize it, would you stand firmly and say it was wrong, or would you give in like you have on this issue? This would raise the question of what could and could not be rationalized. In short, tons and tons of questions arise when one tries to deny absolute truth and instead embraces the myth of relativism.

By J. Morris

March 17, 2005 04:36 PM | Link to this

Wow…Zack actually thinks that there is a logical comparison between someone killing tall people because he doesn’t like them and the current discussion about euthenasia…

GG Zack - you got us on that one!

BTW: Points for not using “liberal” in that post. Of course, you still used “desperate”, so you lose points there. Keep trying - one day you may post something that actually makes sense.

To trolls.

By Tony

March 17, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this

JMorris Per Lee’s post, go to http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

There you will find File No. 90-2908GD-003 filed 11 Feb 00 in which Michael request authorization to discontinue Artifical Life Support (i.e. remove feeding tube).

By Jack

March 17, 2005 04:47 PM | Link to this

This blog is addictive! If I had a time machine, the first thing I would do is go back to see if the bible was telling the truth and meet Jesus. Then I would go back and buy all of the Home Depot stock I could when it was first offered for $5.00 a share.

By J. Morris

March 17, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this

Tony,

Same website you will see where he requested that the courts take that decision out of his hands. To wit:

May 1998… Michael files petition for court to determine whether Terri’s feeding tube should be removed; Michael takes position that Terri would chose to remove the tube; Terri’s parents take position that Terri would chose not to remove the tube

By LY

March 17, 2005 04:50 PM | Link to this

Link: text to be linked JMorris to comment on your March 14th, comment at 12:46, where you say that Terri is GONE because she has no brain function and that she has no spirit. Take a closer look into Terri’s eyes when you see a media clip again. I have and her spirit is very much there. Somone who has no spirit living within looks lifeless and empty. Terri’s eyes has a show of emotion. I can see her smiling by looing at her eyes. If only she could speak. If her brain wasn’t there how is it that she can open her eyes, move her arms, or even attempt to smile. Our brain controls all these things it isn’t just by chance that we can move, talk, or even breath.

Zack- Thank you.

Jack- Doooohhhhhh. Why throw someone out of a plane to keep it from crashing because of too much weight when you can start with the seats, refreshment carts etc. Wouldn’t that just lighten the load.

By Crystal

March 17, 2005 04:51 PM | Link to this

Christianity is a fraud only to those who haven’t found it.I speak not of so-called “fundamentalism” in Christianity but of all those who seek to follow Christ. No one can be forced into spirituality. Nor should they be. It is personal and heartfelt.

As to legal euthanasia, it would mercifully relieve some dying patients from terrible pain. But it must require the consent of the patient and ethical doctors.

Terri Schiavo is a child of God, like all of us, good and bad. She should be left to gently return to her Maker without feeding tubes and other life extenders of her dying body.

By lozen

March 17, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this

Zack it was you who said “thou shalt not kill” is for individuals and not governments. But I don’t remember the bible saying that. Where is it “Thou shalt not kill except for the government in wars and death rows?” That is how you rationalize your stance. Tons of questions do arise Zack when one looks at a situation and does not try to solve it with archaic rules and regulations written for the Israelites thousands of years ago. And so we handle those questions when they arise and we figure it out. You call that relativism; I call it living in the real world. You certainly do not know the absolute truth although you’re so blind you really believe you do.

By Tim

March 17, 2005 04:54 PM | Link to this

Tony… that site also shows what I stated earlier of what really happened to her… you are getting your ‘facts’ from her fathers website… read UNBIASED material please

By Susan

March 17, 2005 04:54 PM | Link to this

Kenneth’s got the system pegged, and how folks are often unwittinly manipulated into participating full throttle, and encouraged even with misguided intentions. And Sandy, if only you could “pastor” the world. How refreshing and unabashedly hopeful.

By J. Morris

March 17, 2005 04:55 PM | Link to this

LY, you are a victim of emotional vulnerability. EEGs don’t lie…video cameras and news broadcasts most certainly do.

By Bruce

March 18, 2005 07:19 AM | Link to this

Jack,

If you had a time machine and were able to find out if the Bible is telling the truth would you believe?

By Tony

March 18, 2005 07:45 AM | Link to this

Today I’m praying and believeing on God.

When Paul was a boy growing up in Utah, he happened to live near an old copper smelter, and the sulfur dioxide that poured out of the refinery had made a desolate wasteland out of what used to be a beautiful forest. Paul vowed that some day he would bring back the life to this land.

Many years later Paul was in the area, and he went to the smelter office. He asked if they had any plans to bring the trees back. The answer was “No.” He asked them if they would let him try to bring the trees back. Again, the answer was “No.” They didn’t want him on their land. After praying about the matter, Paul realized he needed to become more knowledgeable before anyone would listen to him, so he went to college to study botany.

At the college he met a professor who was an expert in Utah’s ecology. Unfortunately, Paul was told that the wasteland he wanted to bring back was beyond hope. He was told that his goal was foolish because even if he planted trees, and even if they grew, the wind would only blow the seeds forty feet per year, and that’s all you’d get because there weren’t any birds or squirrels to spread the seeds, and the seeds from those trees would need another thirty years before they started producing seeds of their own. Therefore, it would take approximately twenty thousand years to revegitate that six-square-mile piece of earth. His teachers told him it would be a waste of his life to try to do it. It just could not be done.

So he tried to go on with his life. He got a job operating heavy equipment, got married, and had some kids. However, as a good Christian, he knew that “faith by itself, if not accompanied by action, is dead” (James 2:17). So, he kept studying about the subject, and prayed for guidance on the matter. Then one night he felt led to take action by faith alone. He would do what he could, and trust God to do the rest. This was an important turning point.

Samuel Johnson wrote, “It is common to overlook what is near by keeping the eye fixed on something remote. In the same manner, present opportunities are neglected and attainable good is slighted by minds busied in extensive ranges.” Paul stopped busying his mind in extensive ranges and looked at what opportunities for attainable good were right in front of him. Who among us hasn’t wondered what God wants us to do in our life here on earth? Under the cover of darkness, Paul sneaked out into the wasteland with a backpack of seedlings and started planting. For seven hours he planted seedlings.

He did it again a week later. And every week, he made his secret journey into the wasteland and planted trees and shrubs and grass. But most of it died. Like so many of our hopes and dreams. However, Paul had faith, and kept planting.

For fifteen years he did this. When a whole valley of his fir seedlings burned to the ground because of a careless sheep-herder, Paul broke down and wept. Have any of you had this kind of set-back in your life? I sure have! But Paul got up, and kept planting.

Freezing winds and blistering heat, landslides and floods and fires destroyed his work time and time again. But he kept planting. One night he found a highway crew had come and taken tons of dirt for a road grade, and all the plants he painstakingly planted in that area were gone. I don’t know about you, but this sounds like the way things have gone in my life. Time for some major prayers. Then Paul kept planting.

Week after week, year after year he kept at it, against the opinion of the authorities, against the trespassing laws, against the devastation of road crews, against the wind and rain and heat… even against plain common sense. He just kept planting.

Slowly, very slowly, things began to take root. Then gophers appeared. Then rabbits. Then porcupines. The copper smelter eventually gave him permission, and later, as times were changing and there was political pressure to clean up the environment, the company actually hired Paul to do what he was already doing. They even provided him with machinery and crews to work with. Progress accelerated.

Now the place is fourteen thousand acres of trees, grass, bushes, as well as all kinds of wildlife. Paul has now received almost every environmental award Utah has. He says, “I thought that if I got this started, when I was dead and gone people would come and see it. I never thought I’d live to see it myself!”

It took him until his hair turned white, but he managed to keep that impossible vow he made to himself as a child.

What was/is it you want to do, that you think is impossible? Paul’s story sure gives a perspective on things, doesn’t it?

The way you get something accomplished in this world is to trust God for guidance, and just keep planting. He will show you the way if you have faith, and keep working. Just keep plugging away at it one day at a time for a long time, no matter who criticizes or laughs at you, no matter how long it takes, no matter how many times you fall. Get back up again, keep trusting God, and just keep planting.

Addendum — Mark 9:23 “Jesus said to him, ‘If you can believe, all things are possible to him who believes’.”

[ Anonymous ]

By Sandy

March 18, 2005 08:09 AM | Link to this

Susan- I appreciate your kind words, but to insure that I don’t get a big head, I showed my 14-year-old daughter what you wrote about “pastoring;” she indicated that I’m much better at “pestering.” It’s probably closer to to whatever subjective truth there is…

Might I suggest that whatever your position is on the Schiavo conundrum, that we just put our feelings aside and say a prayer, meditation, or intention to her and her family for some comfort from their respective and appropriate grief, and not for our ego-driven and adversarial wishes for a certain outcome. Namaste.

By norman

March 18, 2005 08:21 AM | Link to this

The House of Representatives committee yesterday could not ask those baseball rascals one honest question. They allowed Mark McGwire and his fellow rats to evade and avoid the truth. But they sure can get into the Schiavo case with ridiculous interference with personal, family, and states rights. Congress should go back to doing what it does best: wasting our tax dollars.

By Bruce

March 18, 2005 08:31 AM | Link to this

Norman,

That’s what they were doing! Wasting our tax dollars.

By J. Morris

March 18, 2005 08:41 AM | Link to this

Bruce,

If you can take a time machine back and find out that the Bible is a collection of myths and legends like the early texts of all the other historical world cultures, will you admit that you’re wrong?

By lyrazel

March 18, 2005 08:45 AM | Link to this

Tony, when you started using your own words you could almost convince me. Its these cut out stories that just annoy to no end. Why, because they arent YOU! Divine inspiration cannot be force fed with drivel. Thanks.

So its friday. How many of you have sat down and written a living will because of this case? How many of you just dont care? Well, denial gets procrastinators and that being said, I wish you peace. Hope you all have great insurance policies or win massive court judgements (please note: cap on awards legislation will now end people like MS/parents getting enough money to prolong wifes life beyond 4 months…so really…this case is mute…250,000 wont get you 12 years on life support) Odd how no senator or legislator mentioned this…wink wink…wave your flag America. Get a will.

By Bruce

March 18, 2005 08:53 AM | Link to this

J. Morris,

Of course I would, my ego is not so big that I cannot admit when I am wrong, like some I ahve seen here. I am just thankful I wouldn’t have too.

And what about you, would you believe?

By Jack

March 18, 2005 08:55 AM | Link to this

Bruce - If I went back and saw for myself then YES I would believe.

By Scalia

March 18, 2005 08:55 AM | Link to this

Tony/Texas, your posts are too lengthy. Why does the moderator allow you to post these lengthy parables/stories?

Vince, my man, you are so right. Instead of arguing over something so minute as this personal situation that should never have made national headlines, we should be focusing on the gas prices, why Osama Bin Laden is still at large, why they say he has nothing to do with September 11th, why drunk people can walk in stores and purchase guns (I was in a store where this happened. The guy was stumpling, but it was okay for him to purchase a gun.) Not to mention the drilling in Alaska, the poverty that the people here are suffering from, etc. All the petty things like gay marriage, etc. should be tossed out because in the scheme of things, that doesn’t really matter. Why aren’t the Christian fundamentalist (who are against sex, etc.) trying to do something about the amount of hormones in food? Some ten and twelve year old girls look like they are twenty or twenty one. Something needs to be done.

On a side note, is there a permanent imprint of Terri Shiavo in her bed? Could you imagine if you had to stay in that bed after she is moved from it?

By LY

March 18, 2005 08:57 AM | Link to this

JMorris-Have you seen Terri’s EEG’s? Hmmm carmeras and media lie. Interesting. Is the media using artificial means of making her smile, turn her head or even blink, or are they using their creativity to air brush them on?

By norman

March 18, 2005 08:58 AM | Link to this

Thanks, Bruce. You are right. They were wasting our money. But in the Schiavo case they are doing even worse. They are destroying our freedom.

By Jack

March 18, 2005 09:00 AM | Link to this

LY - My post about the airplane was hypothetical dork!

By norman

March 18, 2005 09:01 AM | Link to this

What is all this time machine crap? Christians originally believed in the proximate end of the world. When it didn’t come they had to pretend it would come soon. It hasn’t yet come. Don’t you think if God is God and all that, he would have let us know by now what is what? What is the big secret?

Even a child knows that when a promise is not kept repeatedly he should forget about the promise and consider it a fraud.

By Bruce

March 18, 2005 09:02 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel,

This past week has been an eye opener for me on this subject. My wife and I plan to prepare ours this weekend. Although I do not know all the facts on this case I would really hate for ANY memeber of my family to be in this situtation. Therefore I would rather be safe than sorry. The way things are going in this country I am not to sure having a living will would be enough when/if I am faced with it though. I hope you have an enjoyable weekend.

By Jack

March 18, 2005 09:12 AM | Link to this

Norm - Be patient.

By Bruce

March 18, 2005 09:16 AM | Link to this

Norman,

You seem intelligent enough to be able to answer your own questions. You know what the Bible says, you know what everyone else says. But your ego just will not let you believe. You have no faith except in what you can see or touch. Quoting you scripture is pointless, you know what it says. Your heart has been harden and you refuse to allow yourself to experience true joy and peace.

It maybe childish to you to believe in God and His word but for those of us that do believe we have a hard time understanding you position too.

By Tony

March 18, 2005 09:18 AM | Link to this

Okay people, some have indicated that my post are too long and would like for me to stop. I have to assume because no one has said otherwise that this is the sentiments of all. Therefore, I will not post any stories or parables any longer.

By Bruce

March 18, 2005 09:27 AM | Link to this

Jack,

Although several weeks ago you wanted to punch me in the mouth but I would love to sit down with you sometime and discuss this time machine thing. You see the Bible is a time machine for me. Through God I can go back and talk to those of the Bible. And I believe.

By Jack

March 18, 2005 09:43 AM | Link to this

Bruce - I did make the mistake of letting you get under my skin. If I went back and saw Him and witnessed his healing, feeding the multitude etc., I would bow before Him and kiss his feet. (I would still stop on my way back to get the stock)

By Steve

March 18, 2005 09:45 AM | Link to this

Scalia -

You would probably consider me a “Christian fundamentalist”. You really made me laugh with your last post. I confess that I do not really know much about the hormones in food, and I hate to blow your image of us but, here it goes - I really like sex. : ) Where do you think the FUN in FUNdamentalist come from?

Now back to your discussion…

By Jack

March 18, 2005 09:52 AM | Link to this

If Christian fundamentalist’s were against sex there would be a lot less of us.

By Crystal

March 18, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this

These discussions may be fun but they really seem to be a complainers’ workshop. If you are against the government, religion and most things in life, do something about it. Write your congressman, your president, your newspaper. See your doctor. Sitting at a computer all day with “much ado about nothing” really amounts to just that, NOTHING. But have fun. There will be a new topic to squawk about next week. Take your medicine and enjoy springtime.

By lozen

March 18, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this

I disagree; I think christian fundamentalists are against sex. It’s considered a sin unless it is done with only one person and in one situation (marriage) for your entire life. But even with all the guilt loaded onto sex from christianity, natural instincts can’t be eliminated!

By Michael

March 18, 2005 10:58 AM | Link to this

Boscoe,

Did you find the “nonexistent” treaty a few weeks ago? I gave you plenty of evidence that it existed. Is it possible for a religious person such as yourself to admit you were wrong or is dogmatism the hallmark of religious belief in this part of the country?

By lozen

March 18, 2005 11:11 AM | Link to this

Dear Crystal, Very good point and I do contact my government officials on almost a daily basis. If you aren’t complaining, you don’t know what’s really going on here. You are right, complaining without putting some action behind it, doesn’t change anything.

By lozen

March 18, 2005 11:15 AM | Link to this

Who is Osama bin Laden? That name sounds vaguely familiar but it’s been a long time since I heard it. I figure he must be the old ruler of Iraq though since we’re at war there. Right?

By norman

March 18, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this

Christian fundamentalists are raised for marriage. Sex is only ok in marriage. That is why while non-fundies get married rather late, fundies get married right out of high school or college (yes, some of them go to college but it doesn’t teach them anything).Fundies think sex if great if done with God in mind in a mono relationship. I find nothing wrong with this. They are doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

But many of them have hangups derived from preaching they have heard from age 3. Thus by the time they are getting married they may have lost the joy of it all. They have joy in Christ (which means they don’t have any real joy.) How can you have joy in a mutilated, tortured Jew who died two thousand years ago? One way: being a sado-masochist.

By J. Morris

March 18, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this

Crystal, it seems every post you make on this blog is something belittling the people doing the posting…you criticize us for squawking or whining or being inane, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen you actually contribute to any argument, on either side.

On behalf of conservatives and liberals of the blog alike, I invite you to stop interjecting your scorn at the rest of us; if indeed posting and or reading on the blog is such a waste of time, I wonder why you keep rearing your ugly head.

By J. Morris

March 18, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this

LY, I have not seen the EEGs personally, no. But the courts have, and the courts have based their decision on concrete scientific and medical testimony. Not only that, but the initital decision has survived several rounds of appeals processes. You, on the other hand, have based your opinion on news broadcasts.

Do I think that the popular news media manipulates its footage and commentary to create sensationalized, emotionally-charged news broadcasts? Uh…duh? Do you pay attention to the news? You realize that all the cable channels and the network news outlets treat news as entertainment now, right?

By norman

March 18, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this

People are always quoting what Jesus said. We don’t know what Jesus said and what was made up later to fit in with the Gospel storyline. But one thing Jesus must have said at one time or another to his pals: “Come, let’s go to Capernaum.”

By Michael

March 18, 2005 11:37 AM | Link to this

Boscoe,

Leave it to Ms. Feldhan to construct one straw man (or sraw woman in this case)argument after another by attempting to construe this as a “feminist” issue, and impugning the law in the Netherlands which is similar to the law in Oregon and not about cases such as this one. She also ignores the distinction between the “heroic” measures used to preserve the abysmal quality of life of this woman and more active measures, the passive/active distinction in this context. One can see that biomedical ethics is not her field and that she has not given serious thought to these deep and complex issues.

To Boscoe: Did you find the “nonexistent” treaty a few weeks ago? I gave you plenty of evidence that it existed and sources to locate it. Is it possible for a religious person such as yourself to admit you were wrong or is dogmatism the hallmark of religious belief in this part of the country?

By JohnR

March 18, 2005 12:02 PM | Link to this

Bruce?

How exactly did I prove your point?

By Scalia

March 18, 2005 12:04 PM | Link to this

Rock on, Steve. Glad that I could make somebody laugh. People get so heated on this board. I think that it is hilarious. But back to the hormones in food, yeah, it is doing something to these young girls. It’s crazy.

By J. Morris

March 18, 2005 12:16 PM | Link to this

Breaking news: The farce continues. Congress, under the oppressive thumb of the Religious Right, has subpoenaed Terri Schiavo herself to appear before them. Yes, that august body under the control of the Republican party, the party that claims to stand for smaller government and increased state’s rights, has directly interfered in a matter that is clearly within the state’s jurisdiction to resolve.

Ignoring the several decisions of Florida’s lower courts, and the refusal of the Florida Supreme Court to hear arguments for the overturning of those decisions, Congress has aggressively intruded where it does not belong, once again attempting to advance a far-right religious agenda that attempts to control people’s lives in arenas where government should never tread.

At what will surely be significant taxpayer expense, Congress is involving itself in a matter that has already been decided by the appropriate legal authorities, overstepping its ethical if not legal bounds, and proving yet again that the Bush administration will continue with its Orwellian intrusion into our lives. Way to go, red voters!

By Crystal

March 18, 2005 12:26 PM | Link to this

Touche’, la J.Morris. I like to waste time, too. Guess you missed my opinion on the actual subject of this blog.

But let us discuss “Women to Women”. It is so politically correct for the AJC. Why not have a “Man to Man” and discuss steroids, vasectomies, police imperfections, Budweiser Lite, hair pieces, Donald Trump, Nascar, Jane Fonda’s book and other deep and complex issues. Let independence thrive.

But like “Women to Women”, who cares? Blather in and blather out. But stay sweet, my lovelies.

By Jack

March 18, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this

Big Brother would have to do too much editing for there to be a “Man to Man” blog.

By Kenneth

March 18, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this

I’ve heard about what Congress is doing, and even I didn’t think they’d go THAT far. This whole thing is becoming rediculous, and it would be laughable if it weren’t for the Orwellian aspects J. Morris right complains about.

In fact, J., Norman, RS, Lyrazel, and all of us non-Christians (or non-fundamentalist Christians like Tim) would be advised to make plans to leave the country now, because the time is coming when our very existance will be outlawed.

You think I’m being paranoid? Well, I just hope you’re right about that.

By Jack

March 18, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this

I cannot believe congress is acting on this. I am a Christian but I believe in pro-choice and just choice in general. The govt should stay out of it. They state there was no living will. OK I say to my spouse that I don’t want to be kept alive in a vegetative state. Before I am able to write it down, I have a stroke and am brought to the hospital unconcious. The doctors say I will not recover. My wife wants to pull the plug. My sister doesn’t want them to. SO according to the govt. I have to live this way for possibly 20-30 yrs? We need to vote these fools out of office.

By Bruce

March 18, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this

We have finally found something Norman knows absolutely nothing about. Sex and Christainity. His opinion on this subject is uneducated at best.

By Steve

March 18, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this

Kenneth - You may just be a wee bit too paranoid.

By RS

March 18, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this

Sandy: Namaste back at you! I just HAD to express my delight at your familiarity with that beautiful word; even though my husband & I are thoroughly American, we use that greeting a lot; we’ve picked it up from going to Indian restaurants several times a week (BTW, I enjoy your posts!) Lozen: Christian fundies aren’t against sex; THEY can do it (if they can get aany, that is!) but it’s verboten to the rest of us; can we say “double standard”? ?Scalia: I share your theory; I always see grade-school girls who look like I did at age 20 plus 9 year old girls are menstruating & having sex; SCARY!! Kenneth: No, dear, I don’t think you are being paranoid, sad to say. At this point, though, it depends WHERE you live too. I live in Little 5 Points where you can be who & what you’re comfortable being; give thanks!!!

By Jack

March 18, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this

Kenneth my friend you are paranoid. Don’t know the number of Christians vs non- Christians but there are not near enough fundamentalists to outlaw non-conformists. Thank Goodness for that. Earlier I stated that I was a fundamenalist. I am not if thats what they think. (You make them sound like Nazis)

By Tim

March 18, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this

Kenneth… I hope you are being too paranoid… but I agree with you

By Bruce

March 18, 2005 02:12 PM | Link to this

Has anyone else read teh story on AJC about the baby that wasn’t suppose to live? The article is titled: Baby delivered from comatose mother celebrates first birthday

I found it very touching! See what faith can do?

By RS

March 18, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this

Yes, Bruce, as a matter of fact, I did read the article about the baby delivered of its comatose mother. Oh boy, don’t even get me started..First of all, the thought of that gives me the willies…yeaugh!!! Breeding-mania angers me too. People are so darn obsessed with the cult of fetus/baby/child-worship that they’ll do anything to breed, even under the worst circumstances, & call it a miracle. Stupidity is what I call it. Sugar-coated drivel like that makes me want to heave. With his rocky start & all the medical problems he was born with, do you really think that poor child actually IS healthy & will go on to enjoy a normal, quality life? I don’t think so. And starting life without his mother is already a strike against him. His gandma may be a bit old to take him on. Is the family wealthy enough to foot the cost of his medical bills? If not, guess who gets stuck with them? Well, gee, that’s exactly why I drag myself out of bed at the crack of dawn, haul into the office & work my derrierre off; to support useless lumps of flesh I don’t even know while my husband & I are struggling with bills. And has anyone heard the latest in the TS case? Now the feeding tube WILL be removed but you can just bet the parents’ lawyers will fight until it’s put back in; heck, it’s happened twice already..

By J. Morris

March 18, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this

I find it touching as well. See what modern medicine can do?

You know, I always find this whole concept faintly offensive. As if God chooses to allow someone to live or die based on how many people are praying for it. So, the people whose child doesn’t survive were…what? Lacking in their faith? If you pull through it’s because God loves you and if you don’t make it it’s because he doesn’t?

Snake-handlers use the same argument. They believe that their faith protects them from the snake’s venom. BUT when one of them is bitten and actually dies, it wasn’t because the snake was venemous, nooo…it was because the person who was bitten had lost faith. Not only is the person now dead, but all the people they thought were their friends in life are now villifying them as sinners and apostates.

Save me from the compassion of the religious fanatic.

By LY

March 18, 2005 02:30 PM | Link to this

JMorris We’re not talking about entertainment we’re talking about Terri. I’m very capable of telling the difference. You do not know what I base my comments on and yes the court have seen some EEG’s very early on in this case. Nothing new has been presented. The courts are basing their judgements on old data, from years ago. The medical testimony is conflicting and with that said I am glad congress will get to see her in the flesh.

How did she end up in Hospice in the first place?? Her husband put her there. Hospice is for those who are dying, and hospice care just makes what ever life you have left as comforable as possible. Terri’s condition has been misintepreted. If Terri can swallow why aren’t doctors verifying what she is capable of. Her husband doesn’t want it. The florida courts say abosutely no food or water whether she can swallow or not. Mr. Shaivo is a weak man looking for an easy way out. I hope to God I never marry someone who isn’t into it for better or worse.

By lozen

March 18, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

Kenneth, I don’t know if you are being overly paranoid. We’re in a time of great transition worldwide, and in this country, and that’s always when the religious grow stronger and try to grab power. Look at the changes we’ve seen since 9/11. We’re sitting on a number of ticking time bombs and when they blow, who knows how things will settle? Read A Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood!

By lozen

March 18, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this

75 ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

By RS

March 18, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this

Lozen, I agree that Kenneth should read “A Handmaid’s Tale” if he hasn’t already; it’s an eye-opener. I read it years ago & found it frightening because I can actually visualize a society like that, eventually!

By Bruce

March 18, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

Come on RS and J Morris don’t hold back tell us how you really feel. You have managed to find negitive in a positive situtation. My what pleasent lives you too must live.

By J. Morris

March 18, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this

LY, did you or did you NOT say that your reason for believing that Ms. Schiavo was not as brain dead as medical science claims was that you had seen her on television? Perhaps I misunderstood…

By J. Morris

March 18, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this

Actually Bruce, I was just finding negativity in your interpretation of the situation. See what faith can do! It can save the life of a baby…oh, sorry about your dead aunt - she must just not have prayed hard enough.

By Whiley

March 18, 2005 02:50 PM | Link to this

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

By RS

March 18, 2005 02:53 PM | Link to this

Well, Bruce, I can’t speak for J. Morris although he certainly seems like a happy, together kind of person. As for me, except for everyday annoyances like bills, yes, I do, in fact, enjoy my life. Maybe its’ just me, but I can’t find anything positive in a severely deformed child entering the world under such pitiful circumstances.

By lozen

March 18, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this

I certainly think you made some great points Michael about Shaunti using “straw women” to make this out to be a “feministâ€? issue, and impugning abortion rights and laws in the Netherlands and Oregon that don’t pertain to cases like this one. When I first read her opening comment about feminists, I had no idea what she was talking about. She’s clever though; she got in two zingers: one against feminism, and another against abortion when neither had anything to do with this discussion!

By J. Morris

March 18, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this

Here’s a fun quote: House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, told reporters in Washington that removal of the tube amounted to “barbarism” that the hearings would at least temporarily prevent.

“Terry Schiavo is alive. She’s as alive as you and I. As such, we have a moral obligation to protect and defend her,” DeLay said. “This is not over.”

Let’s all remember that this is the man who was facing so many ethics charges that the House Republicans actually changed the rules to shield him from sanctions. I just love hearing him talk about moral obligations.

By Tim

March 18, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this

Well J Morris you do need to give DeLay some credit… I mean he was somewhat correct in his analogy… TS does have about as much brain activity as he does!

By J. Morris

March 18, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this

Good point, good point, Tim.

By Jack

March 18, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this

Tim-You said it before I could.

By Tim

March 18, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this

J Morris and Jack… :) thank you

By Lee

March 18, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this

After reading the unbiased comments on this case, the legal wranglings have not been about euthanasia at all. The case has been about WHAT TERRI SCHIAVO WANTED.

All cases, appeals, and orders have concluded that TERRI SCHIAVO DID NOT WANT TO LIVE LIKE THIS.

Right-to-life groups have taken this topic over the edge of sanity by extending this woman’s life well beyond what was reasonably expected, and against her wishes. Right-to-death groups have taken this and made it about euthanasia. There is no indication that she is suffering, and by the expert’s accounts, she will not suffer when she is released from her feeding tubes. Her brain just doesn’t have the capacity to understand and respond to that kind of discomfort.

By lozen

March 18, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this

Sweet dreams Whiley!

By Crystal

March 18, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this

Attention Club members: Terry Schiavo’s feeding tube has been removed. She is expected to slip away without pain.

By RS

March 18, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this

Still too soon to tell, Crystal. Remember the last 2 times it was removed, it was put back in…let the agony continue..

By RS

March 18, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this

Fundies: If removing Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube constitutes “playing God”, then what would you call keeping her “alive” (?!?!) artificially??

By Tim

March 18, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this

RS… my question is similar to yours… how do we know that this isn’t the way that God planned for her to die… or if someone chooses to be euthanized, how do we know that that isn’t the way God planned for them to go?

By Bruce

March 18, 2005 04:06 PM | Link to this

I hope you all have a great weekend and I am so looking forward to next weeks topic.
You know this kind of reminds me of the old Whiley Coyote and the Sheep dog cartoon. Remember just about the time the dog had the coyote around the neck the whistle would blow. Ha Ha

By Sandy

March 18, 2005 04:10 PM | Link to this

For the sake of argument, does anyone know what happens if a family refuses medical care for a child or incapacitated family member for religious reasons? I don’t recall the specifics, (that is what branch of Christianity), but many years ago I remember that a fundamentalist family refused antibiotics for their child who had a cellulitis in his foot. Ultimately he succumbed to sepsis and died. His foot became so inflamed that his mother actually made him sit with his foot in a bucket so that he would not ooze on the upholstered couch.

I know that certain groups like Jehovah Witnesses do not allow blood products as a part of their medical care, but I am not sure of any others. Anyone know of cases like this, and where the law stands?

By lozen

March 18, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

I’m celebrating my birthday this week and am leaving work on time to go to dinner and see a play. Everybody have a great weekend.

For age is opportunity, no less Than youth itself though in another dress And as the evening twilight fades away, The sky is filled with stars invisible by day.

By LY

March 18, 2005 04:22 PM | Link to this

JMorris Actually no. I said Terri’s spirit was still with her, and that’s when I mentioned the media. But enough of that.

God’s will will be done with or without the feeding tube. I’m done with this subject.

By Jack

March 18, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this

Happy Birthday Lozen! oxoxoxoxoxoxox

By RS

March 18, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this

YES, that’s exactly my point, Tim! (By the way, where’d you used to live in Fla? I moved here 3 years ago from horrendous Boca Raton, aptly named “Rat’s Mouth). Sandy, yes, I’ve heard of MANY cases where nutty, made-up religious groups let mortally ill/injured family members (children AND adults) die because of their sick, dangerous beliefs. Horrifyingly enough, this was allowed to happen, despite the often-conflicting wishes of the patient!!! Incidentally, folks, Terri Schivo’s been deceased for years. The fact that her heart still beats is only a formality.

By Kenneth

March 18, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this

To Lozen and RS: Haven’t read “The Handmaid’s Tale”, but I have seen the movie. That’s pretty much the kind of thing I had in mind when I made my statement. There’s another book out that has a similar theme— “One Nation Under God” by Vincent M. Wales. (I don’t know if he’s the same “Vincent” who’s posting here; wouldn’t it be interesting if he was.) You can order it through Amazon.com or the author’s own Website: www.onenationundergod.info

Jack: I do think fundamentalists are Nazis. Nazism was very much influenced by Christianity. Hitler was raised as a Roman Catholic. Those who’ve read his infamous book “Mein Kaumpt” have noted his statements about how killing Jews would be doing the work of Christ. Everything Hitler did to the Jewish people was suggested 400 years earlier by none other than Martin Luther. (you know, that guy who had a church named after him.)

By J. Morris

March 18, 2005 04:28 PM | Link to this

Just so we’re all clear on this, LY:

“Take a closer look into Terri’s eyes when you see a media clip again. I have and her spirit is very much there. Somone who has no spirit living within looks lifeless and empty. Terri’s eyes has a show of emotion. I can see her smiling by looing at her eyes.”

By Tim

March 18, 2005 04:31 PM | Link to this

Lozen… Happpppyyyyy Birthday :)

RS… I was born and raised in Orlando… I am still debated which state is more amusing… Georgia or Florida

By RS

March 18, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, LOZEN!! Go out & paint the town red for me! Kenneth, thanks for the book recommendation. Oh, without a doubt, religious fundamentlism shares many traits with Nazi-ism. Isn’t it amazing how these maniacs rationalize the most heinous deeds in the name of Christ?? Also, ironically, Hitler was a vegetarian because (get this!) he couldn’t bear the thought of cruelty to animals!

By norman

March 18, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this

Reconnect Terri Schiavo’s tube and remove feeding tubes from all Republicans, starting with Dubya himself.

By LY

March 18, 2005 04:34 PM | Link to this

JMorris- I already said that in not so many words

By RS

March 18, 2005 04:36 PM | Link to this

Tim; Oh, Orlando is FUN!!! (Parliament House!!!!)

By J. Morris

March 18, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this

DUH LY…that’s your bloody quote where you say you saw this in the media. Are you stupid?

By Tim

March 18, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this

RS… there are some fun lil spots in Orlando… actually never been to The P-house though… my step-mom has… I will have to get her to tell me about it :)

By J. Morris

March 18, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this

My apologies LY - that was rude. What I meant to say was: You did say this, and in exactly that many words. This is a quote from you, indicating that the sole source of your conviction that Ms. Schiavo is not brain-dead despite the best evidence presented by medical science is a media clip.

By Crystal

March 18, 2005 04:51 PM | Link to this

Sandy, I have been in laboratory medicine a long time. You are correct in saying that Jehovah Witnesses do not believe in receiving blood transfusions. You probably know that any patient can refuse medical treatment. As to a child or incapacitated member, only a lawyer could tell you as it would depend on the type and extent of the illness, the prognosis, who is requesting a refusal, on what grounds and who has power of attorney. I do not know of any main line Christian denomination that sets standards for final medical care. But I’m not a lawyer or a theologian.

By RS

March 18, 2005 04:57 PM | Link to this

Tim, I used to spend most of my 3-day weekends in Orlando when I lived in Boca; so, what were some of YOUR favourite spots?

By chuck

March 21, 2005 10:52 AM | Link to this

so Lozen, I notice you didn’t get all English Major on old JMorris for using the word “chose” incorrectly. I thought you were the official editor of the forum. I guess you only choose to edit when you disagree with a post and can’t think of a good argument against it.

Just for the sake of our intellectual Mr. Morris:

chose
v. Past tense of choose.

By David

March 22, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this

It’s probably just a typo Chuck, though I have seen quite a few misspellings in your posts that cannot be explained that way. And quite a few grammatical mistakes as well. (And yes, that is a sentence fragment and I deliberately began a sentence with a conjunction, naughty, naughty.)

You seem to be almost as sensitive about that as you are about your religion.