The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

cvillehog wrote:In the time periond since Congress went all-stop to address this issue (and President Bush flew back from vacation to sign this bill), more than 200 people have died from a lack of suffcient health care.

Good point, but the President needed to intervene before a precedent was set allowing handicapped people from just being starved to death. It's torture.

Keep in mind that once a state rules on a issue, and a precedent is established, an issue can spread like wildfire (see: "Gay Marriage" -- don't want to go off topic, but I just want to compare how one ruling affected several other states.)

Yet, a patient can be "killed" because they can't foot the bill under a Texas law that Mr. Bush signed.

How about the government getting the hell out of our personal lives?

You can exaggerate all you want, the case has been decided by the courts, and will continue to be decided by the courts everytime it is brought back infront of a judge, and so far all the legal rulings have amounted to supporting the husbands right to carry out what he understood her wishes to be.

1) I have no idea what you're talking about. You'll have to give me specific examples of how the government is invading our personal lives before I can respond.

2) How am I exaggerating? Be specific.

BringThePain! wrote:I just keep seeing everybody crying that she's going to starve to death... as if there gonna let her suffer inhumanly... Does anybody think in there right mind that a couple of Doctors, Judges, & her husband are going to say to themselves... "Well, If she starves to death... it's gonna hurt her... but it's the best way to let her go."

Keep in mind, BTP!, that she is being denied fluids as well, something that even the most desperate homeless person has the right to, be it at a public bathroom, river, stream, etc. Even inmates on death row are fed before execution.

Redskin Don wrote:

But, she was clearly miserable, and it wasn't her wish to live that way.

I truly and honestly do sympathize with you regarding your grandmother. It is horrible to have to watch, I'm sure. However, how can you say, with absolute certainty, that she (Terry Schiavo) doesn't want to live? Personally, I would agree with you in that she wouldn't want to live in her current state, but lacking any evidence to the contrary, I oppose the decision to remove the feeding tube.

I appreciate your sympathy, though I wasn't trying to be sympathetic, but merely trying to demonstrate that I am talking about this from the perspective of a family member whose family has dealt with a tough withdrawl of care/DNR situation.

Redskin Don wrote:

How about the government getting the hell out of our personal lives?

You can exaggerate all you want, the case has been decided by the courts, and will continue to be decided by the courts everytime it is brought back infront of a judge, and so far all the legal rulings have amounted to supporting the husbands right to carry out what he understood her wishes to be.

1) I have no idea what you're talking about. You'll have to give me specific examples of how the government is invading our personal lives before I can respond.

2) How am I exaggerating? Be specific.

You are calling withdrawl of support "killing" and proclaiming that the husband is not a true husband and has nothing but bad intentions.

The government passed a law intended to interfere with a husband's right to carry out what he believes his vegetative wife's wishes were! That's not interfering in someone's personal life?

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

BringThePain! wrote:I just keep seeing everybody crying that she's going to starve to death... as if there gonna let her suffer inhumanly... Does anybody think in there right mind that a couple of Doctors, Judges, & her husband are going to say to themselves... "Well, If she starves to death... it's gonna hurt her... but it's the best way to let her go."

Keep in mind, BTP!, that she is being denied fluids as well, something that even the most desperate homeless person has the right to, be it at a public bathroom, river, stream, etc. Even inmates on death row are fed before execution.

What the hell does that have to do with anything? The point is these people aren't putting her to death in a cruel way...it might sound cruel, because we think starving to death is a horrible way to die.... but she's not even going to know she's dying.

cvillehog wrote:

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

Redskin Don wrote:

But, she was clearly miserable, and it wasn't her wish to live that way.

I truly and honestly do sympathize with you regarding your grandmother. It is horrible to have to watch, I'm sure. However, how can you say, with absolute certainty, that she (Terry Schiavo) doesn't want to live? Personally, I would agree with you in that she wouldn't want to live in her current state, but lacking any evidence to the contrary, I oppose the decision to remove the feeding tube.

I just thought of something...

How can Mr. Schiavo be so sure that his wife did not change her mind, as she felt death approach when her heart stopped?

Could not have subsequent and adequate therapy perhaps restored her ability to speak or write? Could she not have revealed later on her will to live? Can we honestly say she would prefer to die than to experience the joy of seeing her parents care for her in her weakened state?

Despite the 50 rulings...

Perhaps Terri's changed her mind. A lot of folks, after a brush with death, realize that their proud affirmations of "pulling the plug if necessary" is not what they want. Unfortunately, Terri hasn't had the ability to express that, nor has she been afforded the opportunity to rehabilitate herself to the point where she could.

Her cerebral cortext has largely been replaced by spinal fluid -- i.e. her brain is liquid.

While this sounds crazy, you still cannot say that Mrs. Schiavo has not had a change of heart. None of those "50 COURT RULINGS!!!!!!!" can prove it either.

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:While this sounds crazy, you still cannot say that Mrs. Schiavo has not had a change of heart. None of those "50 COURT RULINGS!!!!!!!" can prove it either.

If by changing her mind you mean changing from solid to liquid, I suppose you are right.

I mean, if you are going to get into what she might be "thinking," then how do we know her spirit didn't leave her years ago, and we are merely artificially keeping the vessel of her bodying "alive." How do we know it isn't against God's will to keep her body going?

BringThePain! wrote:

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

BringThePain! wrote:I just keep seeing everybody crying that she's going to starve to death... as if there gonna let her suffer inhumanly... Does anybody think in there right mind that a couple of Doctors, Judges, & her husband are going to say to themselves... "Well, If she starves to death... it's gonna hurt her... but it's the best way to let her go."

Keep in mind, BTP!, that she is being denied fluids as well, something that even the most desperate homeless person has the right to, be it at a public bathroom, river, stream, etc. Even inmates on death row are fed before execution.

What the hell does that have to do with anything? The point is these people aren't putting her to death in a cruel way...it might sound cruel, because we think starving to death is a horrible way to die.... but she's not even going to know she's dying.

It has just as much to do with this situation as your comparison to hungry children and homeless people. Starvation and dehydration, while it may be appealing to some, is certainly no picnic.

What blows my mind here is that apparently many of those who think that withdrawing care (in line with her wishes as understood by her closest family member) is killing, but withdrawing care from a someone against their wishes (or the wishes of their next of kin) simply because they can't foot the bill is perfectly fine!

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:It has just as much to do with this situation as your comparison to hungry children and homeless people. Starvation and dehydration, while it may be appealing to some, is certainly no picnic.

Exactly... I think you just totally contradicted your original post to me... so everybody crying about that these people are going to be starving this woman "of barely any life" to death... better be reaching into their wallets and their checkbook.. and hand over some money to the starving children who are "full of life"...

I can't explain myself any clearer....

cvillehog wrote:If by changing her mind you mean changing from solid to liquid, I suppose you are right.

:lol: Even though this is a serious matter, I must admit, this made me laugh.

I mean, if you are going to get into what she might be "thinking," then how do we know her spirit didn't leave her years ago, and we are merely artificially keeping the vessel of her bodying "alive." How do we know it isn't against God's will to keep her body going?

So long as her body has life, her spirit remains. While I cannot determine God's will for her life, I can with certainty say that it goes against His will to refrain from doing good for someone (i.e. feeding, giving them something to drink), when you have the ability to do so.

You might argue that it would BE "good" to put her out of "her misery", but that's going by our definition/determination of the value of life.

BringThePain! wrote:

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:It has just as much to do with this situation as your comparison to hungry children and homeless people. Starvation and dehydration, while it may be appealing to some, is certainly no picnic.

Exactly... I think you just totally contradicted your original post to me... so everybody crying about that these people are going to be starving this woman "of barely any life" to death... better be reaching into their wallets and their checkbook.. and hand over some money to the starving children who are "full of life"...

I can't explain myself any clearer....

AHA!!!! You did it! You managed to get me to contradict myself. That MUST mean you are absolutely right!!!!

I think for those of us "crying" to save this life, we are also thinking about the bigger picture. One that might have too many colors for those who are "color-blind" to see.

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

cvillehog wrote:If by changing her mind you mean changing from solid to liquid, I suppose you are right.

:lol: Even though this is a serious matter, I must admit, this made me laugh.

I mean, if you are going to get into what she might be "thinking," then how do we know her spirit didn't leave her years ago, and we are merely artificially keeping the vessel of her bodying "alive." How do we know it isn't against God's will to keep her body going?

So long as her body has life, her spirit remains. While I cannot determine God's will for her life, I can with certainty say that it goes against His will to refrain from doing good for someone (i.e. feeding, giving them something to drink), when you have the ability to do so.

You might argue that it would BE "good" to put her out of "her misery", but that's going by our definition/determination of the value of life.

So, what about the things we can do to stop people from dying of starvation or lack of health care every day? By your post here, I would think that the christians in government would see feeding and clothing the poor, and providing health care to everyone would be a priority.

As much as I hated losing my grandmother, I am certainly glad that we had the personal freedom for my grandfather to sign a DNR and let her go, as was her wish. I would hate for that freedom to be gone if I ever end up in a situation like that, because I DO NOT want to be kept alive by a ventilator.

cvillehog wrote:As much as I hated losing my grandmother, I am certainly glad that we had the personal freedom for my grandfather to sign a DNR and let her go, as was her wish. I would hate for that freedom to be gone if I ever end up in a situation like that, because I DO NOT want to be kept alive by a ventilator.

but yet the people who want to keep terry alive want to keep you alive because it's gods will... and i'm sure they will all be there to pay for your medical bills to ease the burden on your family. they will also be there to tell your family to pray for a miracle to justify your family watching you in that state.

cvillehog wrote:So, what about the things we can do to stop people from dying of starvation or lack of health care every day? By your post here, I would think that the christians in government would see feeding and clothing the poor, and providing health care to everyone would be a priority.

Ideally, if they COULD take over and reestablish our government based on Christian values, we wouldn't be asking about feeding the hungry, clothing the unclothed, etc. Unfortunately, we cannot change our past, and must live with the consequences of our country's actions and governmental choices that have violated God's commandments and statutes. We are all responsible for those consequences, and we must share the burden. We can't pin in solely on the Christians in government.

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

BringThePain! wrote:

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:It has just as much to do with this situation as your comparison to hungry children and homeless people. Starvation and dehydration, while it may be appealing to some, is certainly no picnic.

Exactly... I think you just totally contradicted your original post to me... so everybody crying about that these people are going to be starving this woman "of barely any life" to death... better be reaching into their wallets and their checkbook.. and hand over some money to the starving children who are "full of life"...

I can't explain myself any clearer....

AHA!!!! You did it! You managed to get me to contradict myself. That MUST mean you are absolutely right!!!!

I think for those of us "crying" to save this life, we are also thinking about the bigger picture. One that might have too many colors for those who are "color-blind" to see.

now I'm color-blind? First I wasn't tricking you into contradicting yourself... I was just carrying on a conversation... you're the one that contradicted yourself... and as for your color-blind-"I'm trying to be witty and create some kinda hidden symbolic message that really no one will ever really get" thingy.... well I didn't get it... but I take it as I don't get what those who are bible thumpers know more about....

when you're sitting in the million dollar church, taping that pretty little bible... and you go home to that nice shiny new house of yours... I hope you sit back and realize, how many starving children you're cult could feed that they supposedly care so much about...

BringThePain! wrote:

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

BringThePain! wrote:

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:It has just as much to do with this situation as your comparison to hungry children and homeless people. Starvation and dehydration, while it may be appealing to some, is certainly no picnic.

Exactly... I think you just totally contradicted your original post to me... so everybody crying about that these people are going to be starving this woman "of barely any life" to death... better be reaching into their wallets and their checkbook.. and hand over some money to the starving children who are "full of life"...

I can't explain myself any clearer....

AHA!!!! You did it! You managed to get me to contradict myself. That MUST mean you are absolutely right!!!!

I think for those of us "crying" to save this life, we are also thinking about the bigger picture. One that might have too many colors for those who are "color-blind" to see.

now I'm color-blind? First I wasn't tricking you into contradicting yourself... I was just carrying on a conversation... you're the one that contradicted yourself... and as for your color-blind-"I'm trying to be witty and create some kinda hidden symbolic message that really no one will ever really get" thingy.... well I didn't get it... but I take it as I don't get one those who are bible thumpers know more about....

when you're sitting in the million dollar church, taping that pretty little bible... and you go home to that nice shiny new house of yours... I hope you sit back and realize, how many starving children you're cult could feed that they supposedly care so much about...

BringThePain! wrote:I just keep seeing everybody crying that she's going to starve to death... as if there gonna let her suffer inhumanly...

Well BTP, I saw my granddad slowly starve to death for two weeks in the VA hospital. After a week, he was so dehydrated that his lips cracked and bled. He went from being 165 lbs., to being 80 lbs when he died. He died miserably. It was a messed up situation. He did have a living will, but it was extremely hard to watch him die the way he did.

Does anybody think in there right mind that a couple of Doctors, Judges, & her husband are going to say to themselves... "Well, If she starves to death... it's gonna hurt her... but it's the best way to let her go."

That's seems to be the case.

Think people... if you disagree with her being put to death... think of a better reason than these people are starving her to death... or put half your paychecks into the local homeless shelter or step down

What does a homeless shelter have to do with Terry? Besides, if I put up half my paycheck for a homeless shelter, I would in fact be homeless .

off your high horse.

get off of yours.

BringThePain! wrote:

now I'm color-blind? First I wasn't tricking you into contradicting yourself... I was just carrying on a conversation... you're the one that contradicted yourself... and as for your color-blind-"I'm trying to be witty and create some kinda hidden symbolic message that really no one will ever really get" thingy.... well I didn't get it... but I take it as I don't get what those who are bible thumpers know more about....

when you're sitting in the million dollar church, taping that pretty little bible... and you go home to that nice shiny new house of yours... I hope you sit back and realize, how many starving children you're cult could feed that they supposedly care so much about...

My, my, my. The "big meanie" is quite sensitive today, eh?

Got you usin' the ol' "bible-thumper" defense, coupled with my "being in a cult" charge. You truly are an amazing spectacle.

Please forward the info where I can send checks to the countless charities you support.

I cannot keep up with you people. I actually have TO WORK! I am not saying let her live forever. I'm just saying let her parents make the call the husband obviously has other interests here.

Brandon777 wrote:

BringThePain! wrote:I just keep seeing everybody crying that she's going to starve to death... as if there gonna let her suffer inhumanly...

Well BTP, I saw my granddad slowly starve to death for two weeks in the VA hospital. After a week, he was so dehydrated that his lips cracked and bled. He went from being 165 lbs., to being 80 lbs when he died. He died miserably. It was a messed up situation. He did have a living will, but it was extremely hard to watch him die the way he did.

Was your grandfather brain-dead?

Brandon777 wrote:

Does anybody think in there right mind that a couple of Doctors, Judges, & her husband are going to say to themselves... "Well, If she starves to death... it's gonna hurt her... but it's the best way to let her go."

That's seems to be the case.

Not exactly the case... just your opinion... everybodys got one... If they called it being sugar & spiced to death, rather than starved to death... I'm sure it wouldn't be sucha big deal to the Preventive Starving to Death Association of America...

Brandon777 wrote:

Think people... if you disagree with her being put to death... think of a better reason than these people are starving her to death... or put half your paychecks into the local homeless shelter or step down

What does a homeless shelter have to do with Terry? Besides, if I put up half my paycheck for a homeless shelter, I would in fact be homeless .

The half was an exageration..... homeless/starving children... usually the same thing... I haven't seen too many starving children in nice houses lately .... but I haven't been to Redeemed's new crib yet either...

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

BringThePain! wrote:

now I'm color-blind? First I wasn't tricking you into contradicting yourself... I was just carrying on a conversation... you're the one that contradicted yourself... and as for your color-blind-"I'm trying to be witty and create some kinda hidden symbolic message that really no one will ever really get" thingy.... well I didn't get it... but I take it as I don't get what those who are bible thumpers know more about....

when you're sitting in the million dollar church, taping that pretty little bible... and you go home to that nice shiny new house of yours... I hope you sit back and realize, how many starving children you're cult could feed that they supposedly care so much about...

My, my, my. The "big meanie" is quite sensitive today, eh?

Got you usin' the ol' "bible-thumper" defense, coupled with my "being in a cult" charge. You truly are an amazing spectacle.

Please forward the info where I can send checks to the countless charities you support.

I'm not the one preaching brother....

cvillehog wrote:So, what about the things we can do to stop people from dying of starvation or lack of health care every day? By your post here, I would think that the christians in government would see feeding and clothing the poor, and providing health care to everyone would be a priority.

This brings up the only point that I'd really interject into the debate. I can't speak for whether or not the government should force the hospital to keep ehr on the feeding tube, or whether or not the husband's decision should override that of the parents. As far as I can tell, there aren't any impartial judges as to what constitutes personhood.

But what I can say is that I don't think that anyone should be talking about her "right to life" in as much as it pertains to the hospital keeping machines going that allow her to live. By definition, you can't have a right that infringes on the rights of others. Rights don't come in different tiers, you either have them or you don't. . .so if I have a right that by nature impedes on one of your essential rights, chances are that right doesn't actually exist.

Otherwise, we can start using language like having a 'right' to a warm coat in winter, food in the pantry, a car to get to work (or roads to drive on), health care by licensed professionals, complicated surgery if needed, having children even if one is not able to, a house, etc. There are things that are essential to survival, but the mere fact that they are essential does not mean that they are (or even should be) guarenteed.

Here's how I'm thinking of the situation. Redeemed, imagine that Terry's heart attack rendered her even less conscious and more vegetative than she currently is. For instance, she could have excessive (and non-stop) internal bleeding, her body could require expensive 24/7 machine maintanence just to keep her brain from decomposing any further, etc. Assume temporarily that they had gotten her to the hospital in time to keep her body alive, but the cost to the hospital is $80,000 dollars a day. . .and not only is she not paying for it, but neither is her husband (who claims that her wish was to die if in such a vegetative state), and I'm guessing that the insurance company can't be too happy about it, either. I know that I sure as heck shouldn't have to pay for it.

Forget for a moment any precedents that are being set because of the media spotlight, and consider for a moment whether she really has a "right" to a functioning body (thanks to the hospitals) simply because our technology has progressed as far as it has. 100 years ago, she would have died. . .was her "right" violated back then? I think that there are problems with talking about a right to life in such a way that she is included in the list--her natural capacities for life have ceased.

This is why I think that BTP and cvillehog's arguments are more or less irrelevant to the debate at hand. Why should Terry have a "right" to a functioning body (at someone else's expense in a non-natural way) over hungry children being fed? Well, she shouldn't. But personal needs are not actually "rights" to be protected, as popular as it may be to talk about them in this way.