The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Terri Schiavo Case

Exegesis that this passage refers to this situation?


God bless,

william

Do you believe it doesn't? Show me where I'm in error.

I think William's been too quick jumping the gun, but to imply that greed is at the root of his position is highly uncharitable.

Also, cite scripture that supports your view.

Terry is married. Wether or not her husband has been faithful has no bearing upon this. She has not requested a divorce and this leaves her husband as her voice, according to most courts. I can't argue against keeping people alive on machinery from scripture, it isn't in there.


God bless,

william

Can you can make an argument against murdering someone from scripture?

Also can you please confirm your view on this so it's clear? Specifically, is it acceptable behavior (i.e. is it biblical) for her husband to let her to starve to death? Please refrain from arguments about machinery. It's a simple question, should he let her starve to death?

I disagree with the use of the word murder. I have asked for a definition of life and have yet to get one. I have also asked where the limitation of government is in deciding family matters. I believe her death is simply part of.......life. She is brain dead according to a doctor and requires machinery to continue to live. You will never convince me that letting a person die because they are already brain dead and reliant upon extensive machinery to live is wrong. Sorry to disagree. I covered the family principle from scripture and the courts should recognize this. I'll ask you, why don't we let this lady speak for herself?


God bless,

william

I said I wouldn't debate you any further, William, but I MUST correct this blatant misinformation. If this is what you're basing your position on, you have the WRONG case.

First, Terri is NOT brain dead by any definition, and if any doctor has said so he is an out-and-out liar. Brain death is the irreversible loss of all functions of the brain, and it typically can be determined in a few different ways. One way is by the cessation of blood flow to the brain, or the lack of electrical activity in the brain. It can also be determined by a clinical examination of the patient: no movement, no response to stimuli, no breathing, etc. Terri exhibits movement, responds to external stimuli, and breathes on her own. Once again I recommend you look at http://www.terrifight.org/ and view the videos of Terri they have available. [Sorry, looks like the site is down currently, but hopefully it'll be back up soon.] If she were brain dead I would NOT be arguing the case at all!

Second, the only "machinery" involved in Terri's care is a gastrostomy tube, through which nutrients are fed directly to the stomach. And as I've said before, the necessity of this treatment is disputed, and the husband has not permitted a swallowing test to be performed. Even if it is necessary, it cannot be said to detract from "quality of life." Many patients who for whatever reason are no longer able to swallow, or who are not able to swallow enough food, are fed via tubes. It ensures basic nutrition.

As the newcomer here, let me chime in with my two cents worth of opinion.

From what I understand of this situation, Terri Schiavo is able to breath on her own. She responds to simuli from her parents. Her husband, still legally her husband is living with another woman and has fathered child(ren) with her. The only extraordinary service being provided to Terri is food... Hmmm so I believe the basic question is, do we allow the state to starve this women to death?

Personally I hope not. In my humble opinion this is paramont to murder, or at the very least execution by the state.

Just my personal thoughts... you all continue to cuss and discuss...

God Bless

Of course you do. It makes your view more palatable to call it something else.



That factually inaccurate statement and your previous admission that you have "barely followed this" bears testimony of your refusal to educate yourself on the truth of this specific case. It further testifies that your viewpoint is more important to you than a desire to know the truth and the facts of this case.

David

No. I don't need to make it more palatable. You need to stop making emotionally charged accusations as to my character. It's poor methodology and nearly slanderous. That's how I feel and believe. Don't like it? Bummer for you. Now, let me ask you a question and see if you dare actually interact with it.

Why doesn't this person speak for themselves?


God bless,

william

I'll be the first to admit that I'm having a very difficult time trying to understand your line of argument given the factual data of this woman's medical condition. What I have have tentatively concluded is that your opinion is based upon a different definition of "clinically dead". Would this be a fair conclusion? Some of the criteria, it seems, that you are using is:

1. The inability for an individual to feed themselves.
2. The inability of an individual to articulate their thoughts and/or feelings as can be done typically by "normal" adults.
3. Others?

However, if one accepts the current accepted definition of "clinical death", then based upon the observable evidence, this woman's condition doesn't qualify. If, on the other hand, I use your definition, assuming that it is different from the current accepted definition, then not only could one justify denying this woman sustenance, but hundreds of thousands of other people in the world who meet your criteria could be justifiably denied medical care. In fact, without any forcing of the issue, would it not also have to apply to infants?

I'm just trying to understand your position on this issue in relation to the facts of the case.

In His Grace,

Then simply answer the question?


God bless,

william

Who is this reply intended for? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" /> It's not relevant to my reply to you so I'm wondering who it was you had in mind and what question it is that you want that person to answer? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Perhaps I should know or be able to figure it out. But hey.... I'm <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/gramps.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

That's an odd remark? Do you think this is all about who can "win" the debate?


Obviously she cannot speak. So what? That's not the determinate to use to justify letting someone starve to death. Nor should we stand quietly by and let her husband starve her to death. As Pilgrim pointed out, you can justify letting thousands starve to death with that irrational reasoning.

I hope I'm wrong, but it's obvious you're entrenched in your viewpoint and have no desire to become acquainted with the facts of this case. So until you decide to look into this and learn the facts, this debate is futile.

David