For those of you that believe that Terri Schavio's

[Texasgal]

tube being removed is barbaric, please post your logic here.

I am truly curious.

Note to potential posters, let's try to keep this thread flame-free, I want to really try to understand this logic.

This is a safe haven to post your thoughts. :)

[obxhead]

1. It's out of proportion.

I think a great deal of this coverage is a distraction. Much like the MJ coverage. At the same time it is possibly a disaster that it is getting so much coverage. We are now changing LAWS that will affect people in the future in what is an other wise "family matter"
these people belong on Jerry Springer not in our court rooms.

[Texasgal]

2. Oh I agree!

It's just like a circus!

IT really takes away from the whole true meaning of this case.

Hence this thread.

[undergroundpanther]

3. it also is about eugenics

Bush if he gets the laws changed can kill sick people who can't pay if a doctor agrees. Blacks, gays, disabled and all the people"normals" think are not worthy of life killed when they are most vunerable\..This will happen if families cannot fight on behalf of loved ones..The doctors and corporations greed gave us tort reform,families cannot sue if accompany or a negligent doctor fucks up a life,If bush pushes the bill through ,because of the hysterics, the state will in effect be given a license to kill. This is scary as shit./Considering bush's New Freedom Initiative and the Patriot act it all should scare you shit less. The parallels these initiatives the"compassionate conservatism has with the Nazis ,with the American Eugenics movements and Bush co are startling,and scary.

http://www.unknownnews.net/040712a-upits.html

Eugenics was rooted in social Darwinism around the late 19th century with all its sick metaphors of fitness and competition and rationalizations of inequality. The word eugenics itself was invented by Francis Dalton, a cousin of Charles Darwin. Dalton invented the concept of "normal"and the"bell curve".. Dalton promoted the sickness of helping out nature , improving the human race 'stock' by getting rid of the undesirables, multiplying the desirables.
Question is who's defining what is desirable in humanity for us?
I don't think anyone should be declaring for others that they are unfit for living.Once you start killing off one class of"inferiors",the definition of what an inferior is has a way of expanding..until you have genocide. It's scapegoating. Our culture scapegoats people who are vunerable,different,poor,diabled..or not this particular range of "norm" that Darwin made up.

The word Normal has become totally culturally ingrained it's original concept and meaning is invisible to most people.
Yet for me someone out of the"norm" it's oppressive quality of it's true meaning is always there when people use it reminding me I am"lesser"an abnormal,less than a worthy person because I have a disability, I have mental illness. So I hate it. Normals do not feel their words because they are not subjected to the status of less.


http://www.cinemaniastigma.com/pages/7/

Prior to the Jewish Holocaust, the first people to lose their rights in Nazi Germany were the physically and the mentally disabled. Through no fault of their own, a nation of people disgruntled by the hardships imposed upon them by the Treaty of Versailles were easily seduced by Nazi propaganda to believe that certain segments of the society were responsible for their hardships. The "mentally-ill" were one segment of the population who were "scapegoated" and so in 1939, Heinrich Himmler, head of the notorious S.S. ordered that all those who were a "burden on the society" were to be exterminated. This legalized murder deceptively called euthanasia - although rarely acknowledged - set the stage in a practical and ideological way for the eventual extermination of 6 million Jews.


http://www.prisonplanet.com/112503louise.html

Nicknamed "compassionate conservatism", by the influential neo-conservative Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, the new eugenics is a repackaged modern version of early 20th century Eugenics, to make these dangerous "ideas" more acceptable to the general public.

And besides starving someone to death is barbaric.Science made mistakes about other peoples pain before.Why trust their opinions.Scientists are not the most compassionate feeling people when they see humans bodies as machines.Starving Terri is torture AND murder. If she had a lethal injection at least we would not be risking torture too. But than again to the squeamish it looks closer to what it is..murder of a woman that is weak disabled and scapegoated to be rid of her.An old time psychological sacrifice for purging the sin of a nation. If the Law gets passed Terri lives but countless others will die.Bush killed a black baby boy against the wishes of his mom he was Sun.
Just because it's fighting for Terri's life as fundies think,it's really about getting a law passed so the state can decide who lives and who dies.And I'll tell you right now alot of people like Terri will be killed against the families wishes if that law passes.

http://www.unknownnews.net/050322a-upits.html

[Solon]

5. This is about a personal decision, no more, no less...

Yes Bush is an asshole, having that law passed in Texas, however, in this case, its about carrying out HER wishes, no one elses, much less the state. The State has no business in this, and neither does anyone else outside of family, unless the family makes it their business, like the court battles of damn near a decade now.

[undergroundpanther]

6. A decade in court is inconvenient

But being inconvenienced by stubborn family,does not give the state the precedent to make a law to give the state the right to decide who lives and who dies regardless of family,husbands/wives next of kin and living wills.
The day you let a pain in the ass case,perpetrated by stubborn parents,a stupid media that cannot think,a bunch of fundie hysterics threatening lawlessness if they don't get their way,and this convinces you to tear down your rights as a citizen to decide your fate or someone you trust to decide it you have lost your claim to any constitutional wisdom and you have made an unworthy excuse for the state to start a very bad law on a crazy precedent the state had no business touching with a ten foot pole..

[Solon]

7. I agree with you there...

At most, the state should lift laws restricting personal decisions over our bodies, not impose them due to any abritrary condition. That's one thing that is infuriating to me, personal decision should be kept personal, "My Body, My Choice" applies to us all.

[undergroundpanther]

8. Exactly

But when the state starts meddling in your bodies right to exist or not.and starts legislating your choices,for you especially when you are in a vulnerable situation,and can't complain or protest I get very pissed off.

Like I said before this case,really is not about 1 person living or dying today.People that keep this superficial are missing the gravity of it.It's really about whether the STATE can legally go overriding YOU, your kin ,your will and decide your fate for you,as in if you get to live or die FOR your "own good". It is exactly this kind of emotionally blinding case that can start ugly things politically if it is handled as a simplistic way.I do not expect the media to have ANY depth of understanding on this. An issue like Terri going to the federal Govt.sets a precedent for the state to practice Eugenics on the sly,until the public warms up to it more,And the public will become Good Germans if we are not careful.Bush has used similar laws like the one they want for Terri's case where the state decides who lives or dies to kill before.It's all trouble.

[Solon]

9. I agree...

That's part of the reason I especially do not like the hoopla this case is causing in the media. The killer thing is this, we have the mainstream on our side, this isn't a bunch of wackos who are on our side, no that's the other side, they are wacked out sickos who want our bodies controlled in the most vicious manner possible, by denying choice. Yet even with the population behind us, Bush and Friends will still push through legislation that will determine our fates for us, that in unacceptable, plain and simple, for I do not trust this, or any future supreme court, to uphold our fourth amendment rights. We need to fight for our rights as individuals that have control over our own fates, as long as we harm no one else, and doing that, ensure that this type of legislation falls through and is never passed. I'm not optimistic, but we need to remember and learn, using all the tools necessary to roll back the damage this administration has wrought on us all.

[DulceDecorum]

4. I am very ambivalent about this case.

I understand the right to die
and I am not necessarily opposed to "pulling the plug"
when the overwhelming amount of bodily functions
are being carried out by machines.

However,
since I am addicted to food and water and air,
and have been
since BEFORE I left the womb,
I am somewhat hesitant at removing a feeding tube
if that is basically all that is needed to keep someone alive.
I feel the same way about diabetics and their insulin
as well as kidney patients and dialysis.
For me it is the LENGTH of time
and the very idea of starvation
that has me shaking my head.
This is a time when Dr. Jack would have come in handy.

Then said Jesus unto him,
That thou doest, do quickly.