• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Barbaric America(?)

Natural Submission

Active Member
angellous_evangellous said:
She made her will quite clear through her husband. It would be most interesting to see how you can recoincile the use of the term "murder" with the removal of the feeding tube and yet support active killing in the emboldend text.

Are you able to offer us more substantive insight?

Furthermore, do you remember what you said in post #6?

To reiterate, i am against the manner of death as a tortorous murder. IF she indeed wanted to die why wait so many years if the doctors said there is no hope? If she DID want to die, fine, but do it in a humane manner. The way the did it was torture and murder. The doctors said she FOUGHT for her life for those two weeks. Why did she fight if she wanted to die? But again, my arguement is HOW she was killed.
 

Quoth The Raven

Half Arsed Muse
Natural Submission said:
However, my most important objective was missed. i should have made it more clear. My arguement is that IF she did want to die, why not do it in a more humane manner, making it short and painless. Why starve her to death and let her suffer.
Because it is illegal to give anyone other than a convicted murderer a painless and humane death.
Go figure that one out.:areyoucra
 

Lycan

Preternatural
I would like to one small (probably meaningless point)...

First, let me say that I do not agree with the religious propaganda of the OP article, but I do believe the way Terry was allowed to die was wrong. I also believe that even with a living will or telling our families what we want if something ever happens to us is all fine and well, while we are healthy, but it should be taken into consideration that if a person ends up in a condition like Terry's that they could possibly change their mind and not be able to communicate it. None of us can ever know how much or little Terry felt, heard, saw, etc., but I feel that as long as there was the slightest chance that she was conscious of what was happening to her she should not have had to starve to death.
 

Prima

Well-Known Member
I agree with Lycan - however, legally, it was the only option. Realistically, we can't base any decisions on the Bible or on our beliefs.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Prima said:
I agree with Lycan - however, legally, it was the only option. Realistically, we can't base any decisions on the Bible or on our beliefs.
I must disagree here.

Americans have the right to make value judgements for their own lives. For Christians, we will formulate our value system based on the Bible, and we are able to glean principles from it that are valuable in our decision-making processes. It is our purpose in life to bring glory to the Name of Jesus, and relaistically we can make choices based on the values that are in the Scriptures.

The Bible is not insufficeint for a person to draw values from it. It is a treasury of knowledge and insight (Christians confess) into the heart and nature of God, and has the ability to bring comfort to the hurting and life into a dark world.

We should not collectively abandon the wisdom of the Bible because some misuse it and try to take away American liberties.
 

Prima

Well-Known Member
Values, yes, but not laws. For example - say that we legally decide that Terri's mom had the right to the decision. That is the law part. Within that there is the capability of using Biblical values, when she is making her decision. However, you don't base the original law off of a Biblical value.

Perhaps I should have been clearer when I said decisions - I mean legal decisions.
 

Natural Submission

Active Member
It is commonplace for one to say "if i am in such and such situation, then pull the plug". This may very well be what Terri said. However, what i contest is how it happened. She DID NOT ask to be tortured for two weeks without food or water to suffer and die. THIS is why i say she was murdered because she DIDN'T ask for this. She, if anything, asked for a quick painless death.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Prima said:
Values, yes, but not laws. For example - say that we legally decide that Terri's mom had the right to the decision. That is the law part. Within that there is the capability of using Biblical values, when she is making her decision. However, you don't base the original law off of a Biblical value.

Perhaps I should have been clearer when I said decisions - I mean legal decisions.
Yep. I'm all for American liberty. What the conservatives don't realize is that if we don't have the right to choose, we won't have the right to choose according to our values. One value shouldn't be legalized. However, it does get hairy when laws are made according to values.

Biblical values are no less valuable than secular philosophy, nor are they more valuable. It's a shame that it is irrationally optimistic to think that all of our laws can be based purely upon ethics (justice and ethics are ethical principles). Values will shape our laws for a long time to come. We simply need balance.
 

Feathers in Hair

World's Tallest Hobbit
Wow. Here I'd thought that her sad passing had finally finished the angry posts at each other and the mis-directing of rage that one feels at the situation toward other forum members.

Guess I was wrong.
 

Prima

Well-Known Member
Natural Submission, she no longer had the capacity to feel pain. Hence, it was not a cruel, painful death. QED.
 

Dr. Nosophoros

Active Member
I was thinking of posting a "While America was Looking the Other Way" thread but, what the hell.
The "State of The Union" is what we have allowed it to become.

How many thousands ( other than 1) died of starvation because of our policies today, and so on and so on and so on...
 

Lycan

Preternatural
Natural Submission, she no longer had the capacity to feel pain. Hence, it was not a cruel, painful death. QED.
And you know this how? Regardless of what doctors said, we cannot know what she did/n't feel.
 

BUDDY

User of Aspercreme
Prima said:
The problem I have is that the same people who are appalled at Terri's death are not doing anything to help, as jewscout said, the hundreds of thousands of people dying from starvation, dehydration, war, famine, genocide, rape & murder, etc.

This is not a political discussion. It's a question of 'what if'

What if all the time you spent complaining about what the world has come to, you spent trying to make it a better place?

What if you think Terri's death is wrong, and instead of complaining, you work to make another life better by being on the police force, being a volunteer, working at a hospital, etc?

What if you fought to have her live and she told you that wasn't what she wanted?

What if instead of condemning conservatives you worked to have the parties work together for good instead of spending their time fighting?

What if instead of throwing out words like 'Satanic' and 'murder' you found out what the words mean before you use them?

What if instead of just complaining and bemoaning, you worked to make a law concerning Terri's case? or maybe support for families going through that? or maybe funded part of the investigation into her death?
So, is the assumption that since we care about Terri Schiavo's death, we therefore care nothing or do nothing to help anyone going through the same or similar things in the world? That is a false judgement, in my opinion, because you don't know any of us or the work we do to help others. One has nothing to do with the other anyway, and it is illogical to try and make the connection. You are basically syaing that we can not make an argument against Terr's death until we have proven that we have ended or tried to end all suffering everywhere. That makes no sense.

As for Terri's case, I think you all know where I stand on this and similar scenarios. I think it is a sad day for America and for the world if we are to try to lead it.
 

BUDDY

User of Aspercreme
Prima said:
Natural Submission, she no longer had the capacity to feel pain. Hence, it was not a cruel, painful death. QED.
Actually, you can't prove that she didn't and I can't prove that she did. I hope that she didn't. But, I do know that they were filling her full of morphin the last seven days of her ordeal. They don't give that to people who are feeling fine already.
 
Top