BS: Mudcatters supporting murder

Subject: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Once Famous
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 08:37 PM

Interesting how the so called liberal baby killers here also support the killing of an innocent woman who they will support starving to death, yet cry and whine about capitol punishment for known and convicted murderers as being inhumane.

I am not a fundamentalist Christian and could give a rat's ass about what would Jesus do.

I am a person who has left the liberal world of thought behind because of much disillusionment with it's twisted train of thought, political correctness, pseudo-intellectualism, and drug influenced logic.

I will say it and I have the support of others through dozens of PMs that support me, the far-left radical extreme on Mudcat are by far the low-lifes of this otherwise forum of rationale thinking people.

I am sick of their anger at everything, and I am giving you my committment, time permitting, to let you know that I will without wasting my time in any debates, tell you that I think you are full of crap.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 08:39 PM

Hmmm.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 08:47 PM

Don't beat about the bush or dither about, tell us what you really feel!

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: cool hand Tom
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 08:48 PM

HMMMMMMMM im a communist and rational.I also dont moan much,so see the light and read Engels lol,it will calm you down.

   Power to the workers Tom

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Scoville
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 08:51 PM

If you don't like the company, go find another chat. Nobody's forcing you to read the threads around here.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Once Famous
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 08:54 PM

May you be the first Scoville to be told to get fucked on this thread. You go find another place if you can't deal with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 08:59 PM

Martin-
Is it possible that Mudcatters, like the state and federal courts, are supporting the Constitutional separataion of power between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the government?

I know that I am.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 09:06 PM

Come on Martin, If you want to start a sensible debate about a pecervied previlent view here, then use a less emotive title. If you want to kick up a shitstorm, then aren't there enough with your'e name on already?

I view neither abortion, nor exectution of criminals convicted of the most serious offenses as murder, but will not support you unless you come down to at least geosynchronos orbit. Down to earth is too much to expect.

Bunnahabhain.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 09:16 PM

Like I said on another thread, Martin, you have so "marginalized" your own self that, hey, no matter what your opinions are about anything in BS-burg, no one really cares...

Sorry, but you have done it to yourself and even now you state that you just want to say what ever you want to say but don't want to go to the trouble of backing it up by debating???

Like, who cares? Or like you would say, "Who gives a rat's ass?" Hey, ahhhhh, hate to break it to ya, pal, but, ahhhh, no one....

Sorry... I really am...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: jaze
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 09:32 PM

And your're the high-life? Look in the mirror,man, all you do is spew anger. This is a sad, tragic and emotional issue. Everyone has their feelings and thoughts and their rignt to express them without the vitriol you spew at them. Even you. But I'm amazed that someone so conservative isn't alarmed at the absurdity of government intrusion into the private affair of one family. This happens every single day. People are removed from life support every day in this country. So is this what our gov't and congress are going to concern themselves with? Daily? God help us. If this woman expressed her wishes to her husband, her family should respect his decision. I can understand their grief at losing their child. And my heart goes out to all of them. But ultimately, I think her wishes as expressed to her husband should be respected. I would want that, and I expect if you were truly honest with yourself, you would want you're wishes carried out, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: harpgirl
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 09:49 PM

Hey cloneheads!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: open mike
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 09:53 PM

according to figures i have seen, there are currently between 20,000 and 30,000 people (victims? patients) in a Persistant Vegetative State or Coma whose corpses are being maintained at the cost of millions of dollars annually. For these there is very little hope of a future life. yet assistance is being withdrawn from those who do have hope of life in the future and who can become useful citizens. Where is the fairness in that? When yo udo CPR there is a 1 in 10 chance the patient will come to and survive. Much, much less for comatose.
quote from a PVS web site..
" Many find it agonizing to watch anyone, particularly a loved one, languish in this condition with little hope for recovery. For this reason, allowing PVS patients to die can seem very merciful. So, the ethical question arises: should we withdraw artificially administered food and fluids from these patients and allow them die?" Terry has been in this condition sicne 1990. Her Brain is already "dead"
"it is generally agreed that if a patient doesn't become responsive before six months, his or her prognosis is extremely poor"
I have not heard why or how she became this way...
"Individuals recovering from coma require close medical supervision. A coma rarely lasts more than 2 to 4 weeks. Some patients may regain a degree of awareness after persistent vegetative state. Others may remain in that state for years or even decades. The most common cause of death for someone in a persistent vegetative state is infection, such as pneumonia."
The right to die with dignity is not the same as murder or capital punishment.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 09:59 PM

Its not just the storm that's shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: jaze
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 10:04 PM

Sadly, Open Mike, her condition is the result of a heart attack as a result of an eating disorder. How ironic is that?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 10:11 PM

OK, then. To Reprise the closed thread:


Why the fu$k do people persist in RESPONDING to this Martin turd?

The Marty the Mensch doll is not amusing, not entertaining, he's not enlightening. He's not even a whooopee cushion, Bobert - more like a guy exposing himself to school girls to get a reaction. Pathetic.

Way past time to issue a DNR order on him- Do Not Respond.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 10:15 PM

they DO call Chicago "The Windy City"...I'm beginning to see why.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 10:39 PM

Martin - your diatribe - is like the Delphi Oracle - it goes BOTH ways.

What precicsly, is you point?

List examples, cite sources, be specific and provide links to previous postings.

Sincerely,

Gargoyle

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 10:51 PM

Have you seen the MRI of her brain, Martin? Nearly all of the cerebellum has shrunken away. Not that scientific fact sould have any bearing on your opinion, but frankly, there has been no brain activity for a very long time, and the MRI shows there is no material left to generate any. A significant portion of the populace and some notable political figures who know better, have chosen to prolong this woman's existence to score points in some sort of right-to-life argument. Sorry, but I don't buy it. And calling it murder doesn't carry any water with me, nor with most people who will read your post. I'd also be curious to see if you are capable of mustering a reasonable response to this (should you choose to do so) outside of the standard string of obscenities you're in the habit of substituting for a strong position.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 11:03 PM

I'm pro-choice...

I'm pro Pull-The-Plug...

I'm pro capitol punishment...

I'm also pro pot!

Why don't you calm down, MG... have some dip... cause yer just making yourself look band and worse...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Once Famous
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 11:05 PM

Greg F. is a complete motherfucker. One of Mudcat's most complete morons. A total ignoramous who is so anti-establishment everything he will eat his own turds because they are more organic than what can be bought at a supermarket.

He responds to me everytime! consider your chain yanked as usual, you dispicable turd with earflaps.

Gee,Lonesome EJ, I didn't know you were one of her attending physicians. Maybe if you are a parent you might watch one of your own kids die who was living with a beating heart and pulling air into their lungs.

Gargoyle, you don't get it. I find debating pseudo-intellectuals a waste of time here. All they do is howl when challanged. At least, I have the balls to call one a shithead.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 11:11 PM

Dearest Lonesome -

I have always acknowledged you to be an IDJET

However, I am totaly lost within your responce.

Who/What is:her brain

Who/What is: this woman's

HE-SHE-ITS tend to stink!!!!

Sincerely,

Gargoyle

Make your point without he stench of he-she-its.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Once Famous
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 11:14 PM

Clinton

I don't care.

So what?

I think you are pro-phylactic.   Used.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Amos
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 11:17 PM

Geeze Gargs, fix your meds, or swap with MG's -- you both need a change. What isher brain? I am sure the usual definitions will serve. What kinda crowd are you running with over there?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Once Famous
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 11:19 PM

Probably Hollywodd liberal types who we are still waiting to leave the country after the election.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 11:30 PM

Nicely put, garg. I'll see if I can find someone else with the appropriate bizarre pathology who can translate your comments for me.

Martin, thanks for a reasonable response. No, I'm not an attending physician, but I believe the resolution to this should lie in scientific evidence and not unsupportable hopes. I have seen no evidence that supports the idea that Terri Schaivo is in anything but a vegetative state, and certainly none to support the idea of any recovery. I do have a child, and I think I understand how her parents must feel. Tragically, there are thousands of others who are enduring the same sort of pain, without the complication of lawsuits, media coverage, and those seeking to advance a political agenda. The MRIs are available for viewing. I would be interested in your opinion on them.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 12:00 AM

Yer man Bush supports murder too then, Martin. After all, he signed the legislations that allows hospitals in Texas to commit what you are describing as "murder" (removing life support from people like Terri Schiavo) against the wishes of their families.

Looks like you'd better get started writing letters to Mr. Bush so you can let him know what a murderer he is.

Oops! You support murder too! You voted for him!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Dead Horse
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 04:02 AM

I am all in favour of murder in one or two particular cases. It's only the legal retribution that is bound to follow that stops me from actually committing the crime. Crime? Not in my mind, more like justifiable homicide.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Pied Piper
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 05:19 AM

Yet another thought provoking and cogent analysis of a current moral dilemma from Martin.
Were would we be without his insightful and intelligent observations. The flashlight of his mind illuminates for us, all those things that our limited perspective is unable to discern.

Martin Martin Ubermensch
Speaks both Latin, Greek and French
What a pity that your view
Only ever, relates to you

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 06:14 AM

Martin, you support a lot of things, including pack rape. Lucky we have Joe to clean up some of your nastier comments.

Glad you're beginning to discover the value of human life... conservative, American human life.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: 42
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 07:02 AM

My mother left a living will and everyone should do the same. It did not make her dying less sudden or horrific, but she made the choice.

The creation of such a document would make the hatred and rancour evidenced in this thread moot and ensure that those who wish their lives to be prolonged, regardless of what we may perceive the 'quality' of that life to be, may do so; while those who want to exist independent of artifical devices also have the choice.

It's a disgrace the media decided to give this story such a high profile when what it comes down to in the end is the intimate, raw emotions of a family in distress. With thousand of children around the world dying each day of starvation, it seems so ironic.
jen

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: robomatic
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 07:38 AM

The God Racket

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 09:01 AM

That's a great article.

It is also quite enlightening to read the Miami Herald, for information about this case. You have to register, but it's well worth it, as they seem to be the only national paper really examining who these hucksters are.

Here are some very interesting excerpts from one of their stories in today's paper:

Posted on Thu, Mar. 24, 2005

FAMILY HISTORY

Husband, in-laws once were united in caring for Terri

Before the fighting, Michael Schiavo and his in-laws cared for Terri Schiavo together. The Schindlers urged him to date, and later agreed on the extent of her damage.

PINELLAS PARK - For years, even after suspicion drove them apart and pitted them in a fierce legal fight, Michael Schiavo and his in-laws seemed to agree on one thing: that Terri, his wife and their daughter, was in a persistent vegetative state.

During a January 2000 court battle in which Bob and Mary Schindler sought to wrest Terri's guardianship from Michael Schiavo, the Schindlers repeatedly conceded that their daughter's brain damage was extreme.

''We do not doubt that she's in a persistent vegetative state,'' Pam Campbell, then the Schindlers' lawyer, told the court. Later, Michael Schiavo's lawyer, George Felos, asked Mary Schindler, ''Is Terri in a vegetative condition now?'' to which she replied, ``Yes. That is what they call it.''

Many of the Schindlers' supporters insist Terri is very much alert. Michael Schiavo has also been cast by detractors as an adulterous, heartless husband who wanted to remove Terri's feeding tube in order to access her trust fund.

But testimony from court files documenting the 12-year struggle over Terri Schiavo's fate tells a far more complex story.

Beyond accepting that their daughter was in a vegetative state, the Schindlers had, years earlier, encouraged Michael to date. When the Schindlers later accused Michael of greed, he offered to donate Terri's entire trust fund to charity.

Up until a bitter falling out in 1993, Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers were united in efforts to rehabilitate Terri.

They moved in together after Terri's collapse in February 1990, and Michael called the Schindlers ''Mom and Dad.'' A year later, the Schindlers encouraged their son-in-law to get on with his life and date. They even met some of the women he saw.

''I looked at that as maybe he was starting to take a step in the right direction and get his life back together,'' Bob Schindler said in a 1993 deposition. ``He's still a young man. He still has a life ahead of him.''

WORKED TOGETHER

The Schindlers later said that they urged Michael to see other women because they ultimately hoped to gain guardianship of their daughter. But they still worked feverishly with Michael to ensure Terri had the best possible care.

To raise funds for medical costs, they sold hot dogs and pretzels on the beach, threw a Valentine's Day dance and made appeals on local news stations. In 1991, the city of St. Petersburg Beach declared Feb. 17 ``Terri Schiavo Day.''

Terri was frequently moved between hospitals, hospices and nursing homes. Each rehabilitation facility treated her with aggressive physical, recreational, speech and language therapy, moving her arms and legs, trying to rouse her with scents.

But according to court filings, Terri was not responsive to neurological or swallowing tests. Mary Schindler testified that a neurologist told her, ``This might be where she's going to be for the rest of her life.''

Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers brought Terri home briefly in the fall of 1990, but were overwhelmed. Then they sent her to California to have experimental platinum electrodes implanted to stimulate her brain. Michael slept by her bedside for five weeks. Terri sat up and her eyes burned brightly when the implants were turned up high, Michael testified, but the doctor told him the reactions were mere motor responses.

Meanwhile, Michael filed a malpractice suit against two of Terri's doctors, unwittingly setting into motion events that tore him and the Schindlers apart.

Michael initially expected a multimillion-dollar award, and the Schindlers said he promised them a share, which would enable them to care for Terri at home.

By then, the Schindlers were almost broke. After selling his share of a successful industrial equipment company, Bob Schindler lost his savings in a Florida business venture that went sour. The couple declared bankruptcy in 1989, Bob Schindler testified. He told a court that Michael Schiavo promised to help.

But Michael said he never committed to sharing any award money with the Schindlers, especially when the award ended up being far smaller than hoped. Roughly $700,000 was earmarked for a trust fund for Terri, and $300,000 for Michael.

The Schindlers still expected part of Michael's share to help care for Terri. On Valentine's Day 1993, they confronted Michael in Terri's hospital room. The discussion quickly turned ugly. Michael said the Schindlers demanded the money, so he lied and said he did not have it. Disgusted, the Schindlers left, their trust in Michael irrevocably breached.

''The fact that he was going back on his word upset me,'' Bob Schindler testified in 1993. ``I was devastated.''

Michael soon began believing doctors who told him that Terri had effectively died in 1990. In a 1993 deposition, he testified that Terri had said she would never want to live by artificial means. He imposed a ''do not resuscitate'' order. Hospice staff challenged the order's legality, so he reversed it.

Horrified, the Schindlers launched the first of many exhaustive battles to become Terri's legal guardians. They accused Schiavo of being abusive, citing his admitted belligerence to hospice staff. They also said he wanted to kill Terri for her money.

But in 1998, when one of Terri's court-appointed guardians noted this conflict of interest, Michael offered to donate Terri's estate to charity, as long as the Schindlers stopped fighting his decision to remove Terri's feeding tube. The Schindlers rejected this proposal. All but $50,000 of the award has since gone to Terri's care and court costs.

NUMEROUS PROBLEMS

By the mid-1990s, Terri's physical therapy had been stopped, enraging her parents.

Court guardians concluded that Terri was cared for extremely well, but her condition still led to numerous complications and hospitalizations. She suffered from bile stones and kidney stones, according to court papers, and had to have her gallbladder removed. She has ''drop foot,'' where her foot twists downward, and the ensuing pressure resulted in the amputation of her left little toe. She frequently developed urinary tract infections, diarrhea and vaginitis. Several cysts were removed from her neck. Several times, her feeding tube got infected.

In 2000, despite conceding their daughter's persistent vegetative state, the Schindlers said they still believed she knew when they were there. When Felos, Michael Schiavo's lawyer, asked Bob Schindler if he thought Terri would be tormented by her current state, he replied ''Yes,'' but added, ``she's not that cognizant to be aware of it.''

Several years ago, a few doctors said Terri was, in fact, responsive, evidently causing her parents to believe that the Terri they knew could at least partially be brought back. But judges repeatedly sided with the medical opinion that their daughter's chances for improvement were nil.

The Schindlers never stopped believing. Mary decorated Terri's room during holidays and saw light in Terri's eyes when she softly sang, ``Terri, it's Mommy.''

''I think she understands. I think she knows I'm there,'' Mary Schindler told the court in 2000. ``She just . . . I just want her to live.''

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 09:14 AM

S. Blumenthal's opinion from the Guardian

For the first time public policy in the US is being made on the basis of pitting invisible signs versus science.

As in tribal cultures, a confederacy of shamans - Bush, Frist and DeLay - have appeared to conduct rites of necrophiliac spiritualism

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Wesley S
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 09:40 AM

Carol C - You don't have all the facts on the Texas law as I understand them. The law here provides for the plug to be pulled against the familys wishes - WHEN THEY RUN OUT OF MONEY. If you got the cash you can keep them alive as long as you can find a facility that will take them.

It's all about the money.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: heric
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 10:00 AM

My first question about the Texas law would be: How does it differ from the laws of other states. My second question would be: What have bioethicists written in critique.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: heric
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 10:13 AM

Because I doubt that it can be inconsistent with the federal Medicaid (or Medicare) regulations.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 11:11 AM

Do you know what the federal Medicaid (or Medicare) regulations on this subject are, heric?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 11:17 AM

Mudcatters supporting murder.
And the Supreme Court too.

Wolfgang (glad about that decision)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Raptor
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 11:48 AM

Lets pull the plug on Martin Gibson.

It's quite apparent that he has been BRAIN-DEAD for quite some time now!


Raptor

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: DougR
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 12:02 PM

I believe the one weak link in the chain touted by folks who favor allowing Terry to die, is there is nothing in writing to support her husband's claim that she would want to die. Because of the actions of the courts, I assume that from now on, anyone without a written Living Will that states how one wishes to be treated if he/she has a similar condition to Terry's, is at the mercy of their spouse or whoever to inform the authorities what they BELIEVE to be their wishes. Her husband has nothing in writing so the courts are taking him at his word.

I do not see any harm in allowing the parents to care for Terry for the rest of her natural life if they want to. There would be ample time later to kill her if the parents can no longer take care of her.

And I do see Martin's point when he criticizes those who profess to value life so much, they oppose the death penalty for murderers on death row. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: heric
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 12:05 PM

No, and the regs are a lot larger than the IRS regs. Pauline L. would probably know. The answer can be had at Thomas.loc.gov, but googling .edu sites with keywords would probably be a lot faster.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: GUEST,CarolC
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 12:28 PM

So DougR, what do you think about that Texas legislation that Bush signed into law. It calls for the same thing to be done to those whose loved ones cant afford to keep them on life support (to be "killed", as you put it), as is being done to Terri Schiavo.

The fact that you are ignoring (or glossing over perhaps) this legislation, and Bush's involvement in it, but making a big noise about the Schiave case seems to me to be not only a bit hypocritical, but excedingly hypocritical.

And my postition on the death penalty (as I've stated elsewhere) is that until and unless it can be one hundred percent guaranteed that the person who is being charged with a capital crime, is the one who committed the crime, there should be no death penalty.

If there is even the tiniest percentage of a chance that an innocent person could possibly be executed for a crime committed by another, it is incredibly hypocritical for you to advocate in favor of the death penalty if you say you support a pro-life position.

So who is the real hypocrit? DougR is the real hypocrite.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Peace
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 12:33 PM

Many Mudcatters support murder, Martin. Generally, people who DO support it give it another name, but support it they do.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder (Sciavo)
From: GUEST,Diogenes
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 12:47 PM

Martin, im hayu samim it hamo'ach shelcha betoch tsipor, hihayta matchila la'uf achora! Ma nisrat lech bamoch?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: EagleWing
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 12:54 PM

I believe the one weak link in the chain touted by folks who favor allowing Terry to die, is there is nothing in writing to support her husband's claim that she would want to die.

Nevertheless, Terry's husband is her next of kin.

Three years ago my wife was rushed to hospital with a subarachnoid haemorrhage. While they were still trying to diagnose that condition she went into a coma. During our marriage she had always insisted that she did not want anyone killing her before her time but that she also did not want anyone playing God and keeping her alive artificially.She considered these two things to be equally wrong. This is the sort of thing that married people sometimes do only say to their spouses. They don't write them down. Thank God, none of Chris' relatives challenged my statement on this. The medical staff knew that any operation to "save" her life would result in a vegatative state and, therefore, allowed her to die.

I was, I am, broken hearted that she died so early. But the idea of keeping her artificially alive like a specimen in a laboratory seems heartless and even, to me, Godless.

Yes, I'm pro-life. I don't generally approve of abortion or euthanasia (please note the word 'generally'). But if it is wrong to kill the living, surely it is equally wrong to artificially keep alive the person who is, to all intents and purposes, dead.

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder (Sciavo)
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 12:54 PM

Murder is, by definition, the act of intentionally and unlawfully killing another person

If the state reasonably supports the death penalty, or abortion, then these cannot be murder as they are lawful, as is a soldier killing in a war.
Only if the state is totally insane and out of control, then can a death legal in the state be murder. Deaths in the Holocaust, even if legal in the Nazi regieme, were murder. Legal deaths in Texas are not.

Bunnhabhain.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: GUEST,PoppaGator
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:06 PM

I've got a question for the super-religious folks who are stirring up so much controversy in the effort to keep poor Terri on life support:

Did you ever consider that this 15-year extrasordinary intervention might be trapping her soul in limbo, preventing her from moving on to whatever comes next?

I'm open to the possibility of an afterlife (or none), and I'm willing to believe that whatever comes next is something we cannot possibly imagine in our current human state. I can't understand why those of you who are so sure about Eternal Life are determined to prevent this poor soul ~ who certainly has long since come to the end of her normal earthly existence ~ from moving on.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:08 PM

I called my old boss last night. I haven't talked with him for three years, and it was time to catch up. He had been quite a doctrinaire liberal, and his wife told me that he had turned into a "Rush Limbaugh."
So, I got quite a lecture on the Sciavo case, and the Boss is quite sure that Terri could come back to life if only she were given the rehabilitation her husband discontinued several years ago. I dunno. I hate to see the whole case tried in the tabloids and talk shows.

This case has been through several courts, and I still believe in the general integrity of the courts in the U.S. I suppose they fall prey to political influences when the issues have political aspects, and I think that's natural and not really a horrible thing. So, I believe that the courts have made their decisions based on a review of good evidence, even though there may be political aspects to their decision; and I'm willing to live with the court decision.

My dad decided to disconnect my mother's feeding tube in December, and she died. I think it was the right decision.

-Joe Offer-


...and in case anybody wonders - yes, I'm watching this thread. And no, I'm not ready to shut it down.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Kim C
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:11 PM

Let's look at this in some logical-type terms.

I, too, sometimes see what I perceive as an inconsistency of thought - not necessarily on this forum, but just in general. I used to work for a woman who was a staunch vegetarian, because she believed it was cruel to kill animals, yet she was also very pro-choice and thought China's one-child-forced-abortion policy was state of the art. Of course people have the right to believe what they believe, but that never made sense to me. If it's cruel to kill animals to eat or wear them, isn't is also cruel to abort a baby before it's born, or to force a woman to have an abortion because it's government policy?

Likewise, many people argue against capital punishment on the grounds that it's cruel and unusual, and all life is sacred - but some of these same people are also for letting Terri Schiavo, and others like her, die.

So - is ALL life sacred, or is it not?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:26 PM

Well, Kim, I have given one perspective that explains why some people are against capital punishment in my 24 Mar 05 - 12:28 PM post, and it is entirely consistent with my positions on all of the other issues you have raised, because is protects innocent life. Why don't you go read it? It might make sense to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder (Sciavo)
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:26 PM

DougR wrote:

"I believe the one weak link in the chain touted by folks who favor allowing Terry to die, is there is nothing in writing to support her husband's claim that she would want to die."

DougR, this has been discussed a lot about this case. It is estimated (because there is no way to measure who has one & who doesn't) that only about 10% of the US population has a written living will, advance health care directive, or durable power of attorney for health care (the three types of legal documents people make for circumstances like Terri Schiavo's). That truly isn't a weak link, because virtually all of the cases where people in persistent vegetative state, who are brain dead, or in a long term irreversible coma, the life support (including feeding and hydration tubes) is removed without any legal documents expressing their wishes. In other words, this is happening all across the country everyday, and usually is done without a living will. This is only in the public realm because that is where the parents chose to put it. Very few of these cases where there is family feuding over life support before removed end up in court.

Then DougR said:

"Because of the actions of the courts, I assume that from now on, anyone without a written Living Will that states how one wishes to be treated if he/she has a similar condition to Terry's, is at the mercy of their spouse or whoever to inform the authorities what they BELIEVE to be their wishes."

That depends upon state laws, but that is the way the law is written in most states for adults. When there is nothing in writing, someone has to be given the right to decide what is best for the patient. Doctors and other health care providers of the patient are not allowed to make that decision, and for very good reasons.

So in a circumstance where there is nothing in writing DougR, who do you think should be given the legal right to decide? Because it can only be one legal entity (ie the spouse, or for minor children, the child's parents). The courts have to insist on it being one legal entity deciding, or there would never be an end to these things--which is the problem we're having now.

IMO, once the determiniation was made that the spouse in this case wasn't guilty of neglect or abuse, no abuse of the appeals process and legal system should be allowed. This case is ridiculous. This is a process that literally thousands of Americans go through every year. It should never be allowed to reach this point. Never.

The order of who becomes the legal representative for a patient in the event of the patient being unable to make the decision themselves has always been the spouse for married adults, then the adult children of the marriage if a spouse isn't alive, and then if there are no adult children or spouse, the parents.

That is the way it's always been DougR, so why do you think it should be different in this case? Or do you think a spouse shouldn't have the right at all to act as the legal proxy? I mean, it comes down to this. Once we are adults, our parents can't barge into our married lives and take over legal rights that are the spouse's legal rights, just because we don't like the decision the spouse of our adult child makes. That is one of the main reasons why so many people are opposed to what the parents are doing. Most of us who are married would want our spouses and NOT OUR PARENTS making this sort of a decision on our behalf.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:28 PM

Forgot to mention - for many people, Kim C, the issue with Terri Schiavo is whether or not she has a right to determine whether or not her life will be artificially prolonged. That is certiainly the crux of it for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Kim C
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:33 PM

That's fair enough, although Terri isn't in a position right now to make that decision, and all we have is her husband's word. It may be true, I don't know. My question has always been, if her parents are willing to care for her, why won't he just divorce her and let them take care of her? I don't understand the reason for the power struggle.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:37 PM

Maybe he really and truly wants what's best for her, Kim. I don't know why that would be so difficult to believe. If I were in her situation, I would consider myself very fortunate indeed to have a husband like Michael Schiavo.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:38 PM

I know I would, GUEST.
But we've all said out piece on this long ago. I don't believe anyone has changed opinion as a result of this discussion. We all agree is a horrible dilemma to have to face in the first place; and most of us use our hearts and logic to resolve it as best we can, uninvolved as we are. A few turned this into a scatological argument, and a further few rose to the bait and responded in kind. I know I learned some new choice expressions.

But in the end, it's just sad that Terri cannot live (or die) loved for who she is. Her parents clearly love what she was; and her husband now loves another. In her place I would have wanted to depart from this world a lot sooner.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: heric
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:44 PM

Carol if you are going to dig through Medicare on Thomas (I warned you, though), you might start at 42 USC §4401 et seq (Federal Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997). That might point to the right place. (By distinguishing what is allowed from what is not.)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: heric
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:55 PM

My best guess is that this uncited Texas law has nothing whatsoever to do with the availability of funding. (On its face.) So that if you want to ascribe nefarious financial motives, you'd have to blame health care providers, not tar Bush or Bush-heads. We'll know when someone actually provides the law in question.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Wesley S
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 02:05 PM

El Greko stated it well. It's a sad situation - and none of us know what we would really do unless we were in the same situation ourselves. It's one of the hardest decisions one has to make and I pray none of us has to make it.

Y'know - Martin stirred up this shit and left this thread a long time ago. Why don't we do the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 02:08 PM

I'm with CarolC. If I were Terri, I would be damn thankful I had a husband who would stay in the fight for me, even after moving on with his life, having a new partner, kids. I'd say Terri Schiavo has a truly great husband. I sure wouldn't want my spouse to cave and give into MY parents demands that I be kept alive, when my spouse knows I would have wanted the exact opposite, that's for sure! And believe me, my parents can be pretty demanding!

As to why you are confused as to why he doesn't "just divorce her and let her parents take over her care"--WOW! Think about that for a minute, KimC. Are you married? Would you want your spouse to abandon you like that & take the easy way out?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 02:21 PM

Well, yes, I do think that all life is sacred - but I don't think that implies that we have to do everything possible to preserve every life indefinitely.

The ants came back today, and they really are remarkable beings. If you look up close at an ant, I think you have to say that there is something sacred and wonderful about the life of each one of them. But still, I squashed a bunch of them. I tried to do it with at least a little bit of respect for the lives I was ending, and a tiny bit of regret that I had to do it. When I moved into the house, my wife used to deal with ants by carrying them outside. I guess I've been an evil influence on her - now she squashes them, but with regret.

And I really do enjoy eating a hamburger, but I don't do it with triumphant glee over the killing of the cow.

When it comes to the taking of human life, I do take that as a far more serious decision - but it is a decision that must be made at times. I cringe when it becomes a political issue, when when people jump up and down and insist that a decision to take or not to take a life is completely right or completely wrong. George Bush seemed to take pleasure in the number of executions he permitted as Governor of Texas - I think there's something wrong with that attitude. Even if the executions were justified, they should have been done with deep regret.

Taking a life is a moral dilemma. It happens all the time. Sometimes it's the right thing to do - but it should never be a cause for rejoicing or triumph. I admit that I violate that principle at times, and can get carried away when I have a flyswatter in my hand.

-Joe "Seven at One Blow" Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 02:34 PM

I agree with your sentiment Joe, but I'd even disagree with the phrase "taking a life". I don't even believe that removing life support IS taking a life in these circumstances. I believe it is a decision that is made to allow natural death to occur. I believe it is a decision NOT to use/continue to use "heroic measures". It isn't a decision to take a life at all, IMO. That is one reason why I found all this absurd (on my good days) and so deeply offensive and disturbing on most days.

Why couldn't the parents of this woman get up to speed after all this time? I mean really--why would they be looking to keep her alive after all these years? Money is the only really legitimate reason I can think of. They would stand to gain financial support from Medicare, insurance, and possibly the Right to Life movement, for moving her into their home. While it may be a coincidence, the "falling out" between Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers occurred after the Schindlers had financial troubles, and expected Michael to use the settlement money to bail them out (according to a story in today's Miami Herald).

But the other thing is, I find it more than a little disturbing that this family--the parents and two siblings--are this involved in the life of their nearly dead and unconscious adult child. I mean, I find that to be very creepy and dysfunctional.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 03:20 PM

With DougR being as passionately against removing life support from patients like Terri Schiavo as he implies he is, heric, I have no doubt that he will take the trouble to find the Texas legislation in question and make sure it is not guilty doing what he thinks shouldn't be done with regard to Terri Schiavo. And I'm equally sure that he will provide us with the relelvant documentation so that we may examine it ourselves.

That is, unless he is nothing but a hypocrite.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 03:28 PM

I don't have a living will, but all of this has moved me to act. I do not want to live a life if I can't live my life. I do not want to be fed from a tube. I do not want to put my family through years of bullshit and money.
Please let me die, I don't fear what is to come in the next phase of my life's journey, but I do fear anyone trying to keep me from it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 04:17 PM

I'd like to add one more thing here. Might not be the best place to put it, but Free will forms Forms for wills and living wills available for every state and perhaps many countries. Scroll down about a third of the page to find them.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Kim C
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 04:53 PM

"As to why you are confused as to why he doesn't "just divorce her and let her parents take over her care"--WOW! Think about that for a minute, KimC. Are you married? Would you want your spouse to abandon you like that & take the easy way out?"

I would want my husband to be able to move on with his life - like Michael Schiavo apparently has. He hasn't exactly "stood by her" as some of you have implied. He's already had kids with someone else, hasn't he? If that's true, he abandoned Terri a long time ago.

Her parents want to keep her. Her husband doesn't. Only Terri can say what's best for Terri, and she can't say it. If it were me, no, I wouldn't want to be there, immobile like that. But I also wouldn't want my husband and my parents fighting over what they think is best.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 05:09 PM

2:34 Guest, I think we have similar points of view, but we're just using different words. Removing a feeting tube can certainly be considered "taking a life" from many valid perspectives, but it's different from taking a life by inserting a knife or bullet. There's a similar distinction/flaw in the "guns don't kill people" argument: of course, guns kill people, but the gun's infolvement is different from the involvement of the person who pulls the trigger. If you deny that removing a feeding tube or shooting a fatal bullet is "taking a life," then I think you are attempting to euphemize away reality. I think the same is true for abortion - it is certainly logical to say that abortion is "taking a life" from certain perspectives, but that does not imply that abortion is either right or wrong.

It has to do with the different types of causation. I'm sure Bill D could give you quite a lecture on causation, but I had that stuff in a late-afternoon Philosophy class, and I tended to doze....

Martin used "murder" in the thread title for a reason - he knows the word has an impact, that it carries a value judgment. "Murder" is a judgmental word - it implies that there is guilt involved, and I suppered it also has a veiled implication of a need for retribution. "Taking a life" is a more impartial term, one that does not have an implication of guilt - and guilt and causation are two different things. I think it's a long stretch to call removal of a feeding tube "murder," and I think the same could be said to some extent about those who call abortion "murder." Still, both actions involve taking a life.

All of this is a very worthwhile topic for exploration - but this world would be a much happier place if people could just understand that many things aren't as clear-cut as they first seem. "Murder" is an accusatory word, and it should be used with judgment.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Wesley S
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 05:19 PM

I agree Joe - but Martin doesn't have any common sense. He was trying to stir up a hornets nest and he succeded. My guess is that the toughest decision he ever had to make was what dirty word to use next.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 05:20 PM

Various agencies around here have noted that, where previously, they would get only occasional requests for living will forms, within the past couple of weeks, thousands of requests are coming in. This case woke a lot of people up, notifying them that they'd better making a record of their wishes while they still can, rather than leaving it to the whims of others.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 05:23 PM

Re:   Martin. Perhaps in spite of himself, he's precipitated a worthwhile discussion.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Once Famous
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 06:03 PM

Bullshit all of you. No spite. I succeeded getting my point across. support killing and I have the right to call it murder. It's a strong word, I know but cutting off this living, brathing human life from surviving is guiltless evil.

Wesley s. my next dirty word since you are so anxious for it is that you suck shit from possums. Happy? glad you feel the guilt you should feel, you anal pore.

Carolc. thread after thread after thread your arguements are as laughable as a big tit broad who plays accordian and lives in a trailer in rural Alabama. Mudcat's own arguementive Googly idiot living next to the broad with no teeth playing her Reba McIntyre CD.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Wesley S
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 06:16 PM

No Martin - I feel no guilt.

On December 18th of 2000 my wife and I held my 5 day old son in my arms while the nurses disconnected him from the life support "miracles" that kept him alive. And I felt no guilt.

Six weeks later I watched my Mother die of a brain tumor. I was relieved that she had effective paperwork in place so that the doctor and nurses wouldn't keep her alive beyond the hour that God called her home.

I pray you never have the same experiences. I really do pray for you Martin.

Because when that time comes you won't be looking for curse words. You'll find a dark quiet corner and try to be alone with your God and your soul and you'll pray - "Dear God - take my loved one now. Don't let them suffer another minute."

Trust me Martin - that's what you'll do.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: EagleWing
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 07:01 PM

"I can't understand why those of you who are so sure about Eternal Life are determined to prevent this poor soul ~ who certainly has long since come to the end of her normal earthly existence ~ from moving on."

That would have been my late wife's position absolutely. She always held that she knew where she was going (even if she didn't know what it was like) and she was ready to go when the time came.

That it came early (at 57) was a grief to me and to her family but would definitely not have appreciated being kept from her "reward" once that time had come.

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 07:16 PM

Marty must be living in a bubble. He certainly knows little about real life. Might just be a horribly rude shock some day when reality suddenly intrudes.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: EagleWing
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 07:17 PM

My question has always been, if her parents are willing to care for her, why won't he just divorce her and let them take care of her?

I don't know if you read my post about the death of my late wife, Kim, but your question disgusts me! I think about the woman I adored being put on to ARTIFICIAL life supports because somebody who knew nothing about her desires on the matter says so. And then being told that if I didn't like this situation I could always divorce her and let others look after her. What right have we to question whether, in their most intimate moments, Terri told her husband the sorts of things Chris told me? What right have we to remove the rights of a husband simply in order to fit in with the religious prejudices and the cruelty of a family? They were married before God. Now her family want to play God and keep her artificially alive.

I know I'm taking this personally. My own wife's passing is too near to me not to. Many Christians (and Terri was a Christian) believe that to deny a person death is as wrong as to deny them life. I know Chris felt that way. So do I. So, apparently did Terri and her husband.

Divorce!! What an insult!

Frank L

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: GUEST,the shrink
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 07:26 PM

Those who martin have loved have deserted him. They have chosen to walk away from him. He now wishes to feel the power of being able to hold onto someone, anyone, even if it is a woman he has never met and doesn't know. Discuss.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: EagleWing
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 07:29 PM

Kim says "Only Terri can say what's best for Terri, and she can't say it."

Unless you are calling her husband a liar, she has already said it. I suggest you publicly (in the press, rather than here) call him a liar. What you are doing is libeling a man whose wife has been kept in a living death purgatory for 15 years. Terri is being denied her own wishes and her husband is called a liar by a group of selfish people using religion as their excuse.

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 07:53 PM

yes I agree with the last bloke, even if it does make me a turd with ear flaps.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: DougR
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 08:01 PM

I suppose my comment about folks who profess to be so against the death penality yet favor allowing Terry to die appear to be a bit hypocritical struck a chord. It certainly did with Carol C.

I just re-read my post and nowhere did I state that I was opposed to ending life when medical authorities deemed that a quality life was no longer possible. I have a Living Will. My wife has Medical Power of Attorney. I do not want heroic measures to be taken to continue my life, if there is no life to look forward to.

I was merely pointing out that the weak link in the chain appeared to me to be the fact that her wishes were not made known in writing. If they had been, this whole mess with the press and every thing that has gone along with it would have been avoided.

I don't question Guest's post that it happens every day and that husbands or wives give permission to stop life support every day even if the wishes of the person involved are not memorialized in writing. So what's the point in having a Living Will?

No one knows, with certainty, what Terry would have wanted to do, and as I said in my previous post, the courts are merely taking the husband's word for it. So I ask again, what's the point in having a Living Will?

And no, Carol, I'm not going to research the Texas law. I've had my say and that's it.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 08:09 PM

MG, there you go with your shotgun approach to every problem. It's people like you who turned me from being a right wing raving, judgemental, anal pain in the ass.
I am a yellow dog liberal now and I am not in favor of "Allowing" her to die. If that was me in the state, I'd want to be set free, but I don't think anyone has the right to pull the plug. Playing God is a slippery slope.
When you use that broad brush approach, all you do is show your IQ, or, the lack of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 08:16 PM

"I would want my husband to be able to move on with his life - like Michael Schiavo apparently has. He hasn't exactly "stood by her" as some of you have implied. He's already had kids with someone else, hasn't he? If that's true, he abandoned Terri a long time ago."

Um, it seems to me that you are contradicting yourself here KimC. In the first sentence you say you would want your husband to be able to "move on with his life like Michael Schiavo apparently has". I suppose I don't know what you mean by "moving on". I would define his new relationship, including the children, as having "moved on".

Then you say, with what I read as an accusing tone "He hasn't exactly "stood by her" as some of you have implied."

I'm confused. Do you not think he can do both? That he must do either one or the other thing? I would disagree very strongly with that sort of assertion. There are very good reasons--which we are, sadly, watching played out in the media--for Michael NOT to divorce her and walk away, the main one being that he would lose his guardianship of Terri, seeing her parents appointed, knowing they would not honor Terri's wishes not to be kept alive artificially in a circumstance like the one she is in.

If he truly loved her, how could he just walk away from her like that? I can tell you, if it were me and I had found a new partner and begun a new family, I wouldn't give up the fight for my loved one either. I would do exactly what Michael Schiavo is doing. Both move on with my private life, while continuing to fight the good life for his wife who still needs him to be married to her more than she needs him to divorce her.

Another thing--how many of you would want to have video and photographs taken of you and plastered all over the world, of yourself in that condition? Video and photographs showing your hospital gown raised to show the feeding tube? What kind of "dignity" is that? It is sheer humiliation. Apalling that any parent could claim to love their child and then do that to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 08:17 PM

But, isn't using the plug to begin with, also playing god?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Once Famous
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 10:10 PM

Guest, fuck you.

Wesley S. and others, I have been there like you but things worked out for the better. My mother lived and is still with me today because of the miracle of modern science and medicine 8 years ago. I'm not talking about Jesus here because he means nothing to me. So screw blaming fundamentalist Christians for just having faith.

Why not give smart and educated humans a chance?

I am talking about giving life a chance.

Terry's husband probaBly tried to kill her. He could give a shit about her.

He's probably someone who posts as a Guest on this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Amos
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 10:24 PM

Martin, ya want to look at murder, imagine taking a big blunt instrument and with months of premeditation using it to squash humans and smash their children, knowing that was what one was about, and doing so NOT witht he grave acknowledgement of the courts, as in Schiavo, but in defiance of national and international law.

That a man could do such acts, resulting in hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of butcherings and deaths and maimings, and then try to make a poster-person out of a brain-dead woman, smacks of the most arrant hypocrisy and double-tongued self-serving disingenuousness possible -- complete slimery of the soul and duplicity of the mind. Thus, George Bush.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 10:46 PM

I have to tell you, DougR, that it did strike a chord. Because most of the peope I see in these threads who are advocating for Terri Schiavo to be allowed to die and not be forced by people with secondary agendas to remain in a persistant vegetative state indefinitely, are people who know from their own experience how it feels themselves to be in the shoes of Michael Schiavo. And I imagine that many of them may very well be against the death penalty, for whatever moral reasons they may have.

It really pisses me off to see you call people hypocrites for wanting what they see as mercy for Terri Schiavo (death with dignity), and also wanting to value human life enough to prohibit the death penalty.

These people have EARNED the right to hold both opinions. And it is the height of arrogance (and hypocrisy) for you to come onto threads like this on and call them hypocrites. That makes you a right bastard in my book.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: DougR
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 12:16 AM

Carol C: my parents (yes I had a mother and father) would be most disappointed to hear that their son is being called a bastard. From you, though, I would expect nothing less.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 12:37 AM

You're right, DougR. Wrong word, since some might take it in the literal sense.

However, the lack of compassion you have exhibited towards people on these threads who have experienced some of the most painful and difficult experiences a person can have, is something that I have, over the last few years, come to expect from you. And so now, from you, I would expect nothing more.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: GUEST,Japonica
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 01:16 AM

Everything Martin Gibson says is right.
He is great.
Everything he thinks is right and great.
Every thought he has always, always, turns out to be true.
Martin Gibson must continue to turn his thoughts into postings here.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 01:21 AM

Doug said "And I do see Martin's point when he criticizes those who profess to value life so much, they oppose the death penalty for murderers on death row. Seems a bit hypocritical to me."

I happen to think that it is the right thing to do to let Terry Schiavo's body die.
I also support the death penalty.
I don't for the life of me understand why the Schiavo issue breaks down along political lines. I understand that there is a grassroots culture of born-again christian rightwingers who dismiss all actual physical evidence in this case in favor of "she just needs prayer and a heap of love from above". What I don't understand is why other Republicans who are reasonably intelligent...and I count Doug among these... feel the need to string along. Even such a conservative stalwart as George Will seems baffled by this, calling the phenomenon "a worst case scenario of the tail wagging the dog" and "the kind of issue that makes moderates who voted Republican in the last election reevaluate the charge that the religious right has seized the steering wheel of the bus and everyone else on board is just grabbing a strap". I'm with George on that one.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 01:22 AM

Hey, you have to admit that there's some poetically vivid imagery in asking somebody to suck shit from a possum. Them suckers can get vicious.
Yes, I know he's said stuff that is extremely objectionable. You people who respond to that, don't help a bit. Not only did I have to delete Martin's crude comment - I had to delete five messages that responded to it and one that quoted it. I'm here for the music, and I really don't enjoy having to intervene in these squabbles. If you don't like what Martin has to say, freeze him out by refusing to respond to him.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: kendall
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 06:51 AM

I never could see the difference between someoneone posting as "guest", and someone posting with a made up name.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 06:52 AM

MG, I rest my case. Your IQ is showing. (Again)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Kim C
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 10:10 AM

Frank, I apologize if I offended you. I did not know the story of your wife and it was certainly not my intent to insult anyone. I have never been in any such situation so all I can do is approach it as an outside observer; and as such, the only facts I have are what I can get from the news media. In addition, I am trying to approach the situation factually rather than emotionally, which is no simple task.

Maybe I didn't express myself as clearly as I would have liked. My impression of Michael Schiavo is ambivalent because yes, he is still fighting for what he believes his wife wished for; but on the other hand, he is living with a woman and has had 2 children with her. I don't really know what I think about that. It seems like in this unique position, he can't fully do right by either woman. He is still married to Terri and as her husband, he should be giving her his FULL attention, but he also has a family to whom he should be giving his full attention. He can't do both.

And as I already stated, I don't understand the motivation behind the power struggle between him and Terri's parents. Is it that if he divorced her, he would cease to be her guardian and then would have no more say in the matter? I could accept that.

I never suggested that he is a liar, and I never said anything about religion. I only presented the facts as they have been presented to me: he says she wouldn't have wanted to live this way, and that may very well be true, but we have no way of confirming that. Those are both facts, yes?

I wouldn't want to live like that. I wouldn't want my child to live like that, either. I would hope that if I were ever in that situation, my husband and my mother would be able to work together and come to an agreement.

I didn't mean to upset anyone with my comments here. I will not be returning to post on this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: EagleWing
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 10:52 AM

No one knows, with certainty, what Terry would have wanted to do

How can you say that? Her husband knows with certainty what Terri would have wanted to do because she told him, just as my wife told me and I told my wife.

If her husband is lying then it is surely somebody's burden of proof. The husband is the next of kin. Unless he is proved to be lying then he is the most likely person to know her wishes. Has anyone proved that he is lying?

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: EagleWing
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 10:59 AM

A GUEST said, Playing God is a slippery slope.

I agree. So why have people been playing God for the last 15 years and artificially keeping alive this poor lady. That is playing God! Allowing a person to die naturally is not playing God. It is allowing God, or nature, to take his/her/its course.

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: robomatic
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 11:21 AM

Joe:

I appreciate your sense of tolerance and your ability to express yourself on that issue. Thank you for your time spent in cleaning up this and other threads from whomever, especially if someday it's me.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 11:33 AM

Back to the topic of this thread & the thread title. Here is a snippet of a news account of of an exchange between the lawyer for the parents, and the federal judge to whom the Schindlers were making their SECOND round of federal appeals to last night, Judge Whittemore.

"In the federal court hearing Thursday, Schindler lawyer David Gibbs III argued that Terri Schiavo's rights to life and privacy were being violated. Whittemore interrupted as Gibbs attempted to liken Schiavo's death to a murder.


"That is the emotional rhetoric of this case. It does not influence this court, and cannot influence this court. I want you to know it and I want the public to know it," Whittemore said."

Amen to that, Judge!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: EagleWing
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 11:34 AM

Kim C

Like you I do not have all the facts - only those we have been allowed to know.

I can understand that you have an ambivalent impression of Michael but try putting yourself in his shoes. He is in a very ambivalent position himself. His wife 'died' 15 years ago, yet she is not dead because she is being kept artificially 'alive'. He is not free to act as though she is dead but, for Terri's sake he will not divorce her because that would be betrayal. In all probablility Terri had also said something along the lines of "If I die please feel free to marry again" only he can't do that because although she has 'died' yet legally she is 'alive'.

The "power struggle" is not of his making. It is the interference of her family - Christian (and Jewish) teaching is that when people marry they leave their parents and become one together. Unless they have some proof that he illtreated her (or according to MG he tried to kill her) they actually have no authority to interfere.

I did not say that you had called Michael a liar. However, to refuse to accept his word about her wishes is to imply it whether deliberately or not. No, it was not you who mentioned religion - I was refering to her parents and others. If he is not telling the truth then the burden of proof is on those who disbelieve him - not on him to prove that he is telling the truth. You say "we have no way of confirming that." We also have no way of proving it to be untrue. Must we, then, keep Terri in limbo untill she dies of old age? Unless we can prove he is lying we must believe him. That is our normal way of dealing with people - why should not Michael have the same right as the rest of us to be believed?

Whether you post to the thread or not is your decision but in dealing with situations like this - on or off the board - please try to realise that many, many people have been through similar positions. In my case, Chris' death was so sudden and unexpected that, after a night of watching her die, I then had (at 5 a.m.) to face the police whose job was to discover whether or not I had murdered her. They obviously didn't like the situation any more than I but that's the law (in the UK) where sudden death is concerned. You can understand why I got heated? Please have great sensitivity for the spouse in such cases. It isn't easy for them at the best of times but to have relatives interfering makes life so much harder.

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 11:52 AM

And then there is this patronizing insult from Terri's sister this morning:

"Schiavo's sister, Suzanne Vitadamo, said watching her sister deteriorate has been "gut-wrenching" for the family. "I can't imagine any family member having to sit back and watch this happen to somebody that you love," Vitadamo said on "Good Morning America."

So that is the problem, is it? We shouldn't let anyone die? Or is it that we shouldn't have to watch Terri go through the same death process everyone else goes through who experiences a natural death?

My mother just died. She had cut herself off from food and hydration. Eventually she slipped into a coma, and died within 48 hours. It was peaceful. It was merciful. There was a grace to her death I was startled by, yet deeply and profoundly grateful to have been able to be a part of--the very last part of her journey on earth.

Maybe if the parents and siblings got out of their lawyers offices, out of the courts, and off the damn talk show circuit, they would be able to actually be part of those really sad, happy yet bittersweet privleged moments the could have with their daughter, if they just chose to accept what is happening...

Why is their no joy in their heart that she will be free of all her terrible suffering in this hard, cruel world? When my mother finally passed away, I kept telling people how joyous I was at her release from suffering. How I finally understood, for the first time in my life, the meaning of the word "resurrection" in the biblical sense? And I'm and ardent secularist!

The parents and siblings fear and terror of death is truly disturbing to watch, especially because it is SO dysfunctional and unhealthy for them physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if they could somehow all reconcile over Terri's death bed before she passes?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: GUEST,Guy Who Thinks
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 01:05 PM

My understanding (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that Michael's sister and one of her friends also testified under oath that they'd heard her say she didn't want to be kept alive on tubes.

Fox News interviewed, with a straight face, a woman who had been one of Terri's nurses some years ago. The nurse asserted (with an affect that I can only compare to a bad actor reciting a memorized speech)that Michael tried to kill Terri with insulin injections. The nurse claims to have discovered "needle marks" all over Terri's body. When she brought this to the attention of her supervisors, she was fired. The police, she says, declined to investigate the accusation of attempted murder.

She also claims that Michael demanded to know, during a staff meeting about Terri's care, "When will the bitch die!!!!????"

Unmentioned by Fox until 48 hours later was the fact that the courts rejected her statements as "not credible."

While the lawyers for Terri's parents insist "she's never even had an MRI, so how can she be properly diagnosed?" neurologists who have actually examined her report that an MRI is not indicated in cases like this where the patient's EKG has "flatlined" and X-rays show that the "human" part of her brain has atrophied, contracted, and liquified.

On the "right to life" side, another neurologist who's worked extensively with "stroke patients" claims he can help Terri "significantly" by providing medications to "increase the blood flow to her brain."

What stroke? What brain?

Why have such people found it so easy to steal the limelight and dictate Congressional agendas?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: GUEST,Guy Who Thinks
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 01:27 PM

Would anything necessarily be different if Terri had made a living will? No. The same publicists and propagandists could simply say, "She may well have changed her mind. Perhaps in her comatose state she realizes for the first time just how precious life is. Since we can't know what she wants now, we must err on the side of life, regardless of what the liberal judicial system says."

Interesting too is that the legislative and executive branches are now distancing themselves from the situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: DougR
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 02:06 PM

I really don't think that it's very likely had Terri had a Living Will it would have been contested, "One who knows."

LonesomeE.J: have I said in any of my posts that I object to the feeding tube being removed from Terri? I don't think so. My remarks have been limited, I believe, the the fact that there is some legitimate doubt about Terri's wishes because they were not memorialized in writing.

Frank's comment to Kim C.: "Like you, I do not have all the facts ...". True enough. my point exactly.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 02:47 PM

Her husband wants her dead and cremated. He probably won't even let her have a decent burial.

He's a bygamist.

He's also her killer and those who support him support murder.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: GUEST,Guy Who Thinks
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 02:53 PM

Well, DougR, in that case they're plain hypocrites, because there will always be doubt about whether the patient has changed her mind.
Shouldn't we always err on the side of life?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: LilyFestre
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 03:23 PM

I hate to say it but as it has been presented in the news, Terri brought herself to the state she is in by being an active bulimic which then lead to her heart attack...I don't understand how that makes her husband her killer, MG.

I know you like to attack anyone who talks to you or responds so I am ready for that...could you do me a favor though and at least make it creative? The possum one was almost funny....almost. *G*

Seriously though, why is it you think the husband tried to kill her? I haven't read the entire thread...so forgive me if you have already stated it...there's only so much time in one day for catching up on Mudcat.

Michelle

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 03:41 PM

How true about time.

This husband to me is a louse, has no use for her, is afraid she will come to her senses one day and she will spill the beans on him.

He's not really much better in my eyes than Scott Petersen.

He has the integrity of a pus pimple on an ass (that one was pretty good), and I believe will want her cremated so an autopsy cannot be done and will cheat her parents out of a decent burial.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 03:50 PM

What a fantasy world some people live in!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 04:22 PM

CT Scan of Terri Schiavo's Brain, 1996

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 04:37 PM

Here is a 'Normal Brain'

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 05:54 PM

He does have a way with words, doesn't he?
Reminds me of the kind of juvenile crap you hear coming from teen age boys.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 06:02 PM

And you remind me of everything I never wanted to be.

Teenage boys are wonderful people!

You are such an old dickhead you forgot how much fun they have.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 06:41 PM

Martin, post enough of that virulent crap, and Joe wil be forced to close the thread. So sit down and shut up, unless you have something real, rather than insults to add.

Bunnhabhain

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: GUEST,the shrink
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 06:46 PM

Martin wants the thread closed. For him that equates power. He is bereft of power in his daily life and seeks it here. As the thread grows he feels insecure. He only has a small repertoire of insults and once they are used up he repeats himself.He needs the thread closed before the repetition betrays his lack of intellect. It is a race. Discuss.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 07:13 PM

I thought personal attacks against other members were always deleted. So how is it that Martin Gibson still exists here?

I mean, repeatedly calling Ebbie a cunt isn't a personal attack?

When did the Mudcat rules change, and why in god's name were they changed to accomodate this depraved, tortured person?

---

Yes, and thank you very much for repeating that remark, which was made twice, as far as I can determine. It was in a thread that was closed and that has dropped off the menu. It was in this thread, and was deleted. But now you've gone and repeated it.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 09:39 PM

Bunny baby. I started this thread. It's mine. don't tell me to get out. What are you, a nun? Oh, I'm so offended! Sheesh!

My remark toward Ebbie cowardly guest, was the least I could do to respond to Ebbie's personal attack to my wife, who she doesn't know and doesn't post here. She is at this time, quite an engouraged and herpes infested, flowing female genitalia in my book at this time.

Most of my remarks are just responses to insults aimed at me. I just like to hit back harder. Seems to work OK.

Power? How can anyone have any power in this ridiculous format? You either ignore what you don't like and walk away. Get off. The ones who are insecure you phony piece of shit shrink are the ones like yourself who just can't deal with someone challanging their one-sided train of thought and get bent out of shape when someone, like myself, tells them they are full of crap.

Or, who just can't take everything that is discussed so seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: GUEST,Diogenes
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 10:32 PM

GUEST 07:13 PM, good questions all. I often ask myself that. In the 3D world, anyone who behaved the way Martin Gibson behaves would be grabbed by the seat of the pants and the scruff of the neck and hurled bodily out the door and into the nearest dust bin. He behaves this way here, behind the anonymity of a pseudonym, because he can let his true personality and character loose without fear of real, physically painful consequences. GUEST,shrink has his true measure, I believe.

Martin Gibson is a bully and a coward. He is also shallow and a bit stupid. He keeps recycling the same insults. No creativity.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 10:35 PM

And you keep coming back for more, Dog Genes.

What else are you obsessed with?

Get help.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: katlaughing
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 10:35 PM

DNR(Do Not Respond) works best, folks.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: GUEST,Diogenes
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 10:37 PM

You are right. I am obsessed with Martin Gibson. I am also obsessed with horse testicles and the fallopian tubes of mice.

I admit it, I do like to lick my own penis.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: GUEST,Diogenes
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 10:40 PM

You've been here ladling out your sewage since noon, twinky-brain. Now, who's the one who's obsessed?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 10:43 PM

Uh, wrong Dog shit brains. Had a slow day at work today. Needed a little entertainment. I am having fun.

You're pretty bent out of shape. Get help, loser.

And get help for those hemmoroids from your greek friends poking your butt.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: GUEST,Diogenes
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 10:48 PM

Obviously there's an imposter here. 10:37 PM is not me. Sounds like Martin's style.

Slow day, you say? What was the matter? Not enough septic tanks to pump out?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Alba
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 10:53 PM

Diogenes and any other Folks.....take the advice DNR.....best solution..:>)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Troll
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 10:58 PM

I wonder how many of those who want to "save Terri from being murdered" Have a Living Will.

Wouldn't demanding that heroic life-saving methods NOT be used be a form of self-murder or suicide?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 11:07 PM

As you all know, I have not been ignoring Marvin (He can have the name 'Gibson' but he does not merit any Martin) because I believe that ignoring his presence when he has infested so many threads is giving him more power than I am willing to grant him. It is true that if we *all* ignored his posts he'd probably eventually give up, but it is not likely that we would do that and it could take literally weeks. He has a lot of time on his hands.

He doesn't hurt my feelings- how could he! He is a humorless garbage digger who doesn't have any creativity in him worthy of the name. But I have decided to treat him like anyone else here- if I feel so inclined I will respond to him. When I don't, I won't.

Besides I sometimes like to push his button. (Is your wife hanging over your shoulder, Marvin, and admiring your way with words?)

---

OK, I suppose it's time to close this one, too. If you people insist on responding to him, he's going to keep provoking you. Leave him alone. You, too, Ebbie.
-Joe Offer-