[ Post a Response | Inclusion Daily Express Discussion Board ]
Posted by Steven M. Busch I am still waiting for you to provide a reasoned defense of your pro-euthanasia viewpoint based on anything deeper than your own personal opinion. You have yet to dispell just how morally and spiritually bankrupt the pro-euthanasia viewpoint really is. Your only line of argument in the Terri Schiavo case seems to be to repeat the mantra, “That’s what Terri wanted” over and over again. The fact is Terri was breathing on her own and she was conscious. She was responding to the people around her, and perhaps trying to communicate. Granted, she was receiving assistance to eat and drink via a feeding tube. Another fact you choose to ignore is that Terri had responded to therapies that were provided early on. Aren’t you at all disturbed that after it became clear that Terri could improve with therapy, (as Terri’s therapists have repeatedly claimed) that all of her therapies were discontinued at her husband’s request? Are you not aware that at least one of Terri’s nurse’s swore an affidavit that she overheard Michael Schiavo exclaim, “When is that b###h going to die!”. But indulge me a little further, just for the sake of argument. Let’s continue under the assumption that Terri had actually and clearly defined her wishes and had stated that she wanted to die instead of continuing to live with the assistance of a feeding tube. That does not end the matter once and for all as you think it does. We are still left with the question of whether or not her wishes should be honored. Nearly anyone, regardless of disability status, can make the choice to stop eating and/or drinking at any point in their life. If an individual makes such a decision (to stop eating and drinking), and it results in their death, it’s called “suicide”. If someone else makes that same decision for another person, (as I believe the evidence bears witness in Terri’s situation), it’s called “murder”. People who participate in either of these acts are regarded as “criminals”- (except in Oregon, and perhaps now in Florida). I am sorry if you are offended by such labels, however they are accurate based on every traditional legal definition. In nearly every culture on earth since the dawn of history, murder and/or suicide have been considered morally and culturally offensive. This is so because the act of suicide and/or murder destroys families and destabilizes society. From the Judeo-Christian viewpoint suicide is the ultimate expression of rebellion against God. The majority of people living in the state of Oregon have made a decision to legalize euthanasia. You obviously side with the Oregonians. Call it “death with dignity”, “assisted suidide”, or use any other doublespeak terminology you think appropriate. I, for one, will do everything in my power to see that no other state follows in Oregon’s misguided footsteps
on April 11, 2005, 1:43 pm, in reply to "Re: terri schiavo"
65.61.101.174
Mr. Welch, I have read through most of your posted responses to date on this issue. You are quite skilled at using empty rhetoric to intimidate, denounce, and ridicule those of us who are appalled by Judge Greer’s ruling in the Terri Schiavo case. For example, you have dismissed my pro-life-anti-euthanasia arguments by labeling them “ridiculous…. offensive… nonsensical….patronizing….hogwash….etc.”, while at the same time you have not provided anything of substance to back up your own opinions. You have told me to, “get a grip”. You have made statements suggesting that you are some sort of an authority on the Bible. However, your analogy of the Passover (and the accompanying implied interpretation of scripture) clearly prove that you are anything but a Biblical scholar.
Okay fine. Let’s argue that point since it is the only one you offer. Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that Terri Schiavo really did make it crystal clear that she “did not want to live as a disabled person” and that her husband, Michael, really was just trying to uphold her will in this matter. Let’s even take it a step further, and take Michael completely out of the equation. Let’s just say Terri actually signed a living will stating very clearly her wishes that if something happened to her such as did happen, then she did not want to be hooked up to a life support system or continue living dependent on others. None of us would be able to argue with her feelings in this matter since no one would ever choose to become disabled and/or would want to be in a situation where we were perpetually plugged in to a life support system. [Of course the reality is that Terri’s wishes are/were in dispute, a fact you conveniently choose to ignore.]
Message Thread:
« Back to thread