OT: Game, Set, Match--Legal murder by starvation

[Krsqk]

Today, the murder of Terry Schindler Schiavo began. Within two weeks at the most, she will die of starvation and dehydration. The courts have denied her rights, and now her husband and his fiancee of seven years will finally be allowed to kill his wife. Ironically, he told another court in 1992 that he loved Terri, that he intended to keep his wedding vows, and that Terri was a joy to him. Of course, malpractice money was at stake in that case. Now, the money from that medical trust fund is gone, apparently spent on legal efforts to end Terri's life.

See Terri's family's web site for more on this revolting example of everything wrong with our society. Weep. Rage. Threaten. But, most of all, SPEAK OUT!

[ October 15, 2003, 21:34: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[narf poit chez BOOM]

i really hope it's a hoax.

[Puke]

sorry, narf. the world's an ugly place.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

if something ever drives me up a roof with a sniper rifle it'll be things like this.

[Alpha Kodiak]

Definitely not a hoax: link.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

well, that was one-sided.

[Krsqk]

No, it's not a hoax. I've followed this case for nearly a year now. The judicial mishandling and inaction is bad enough; (Recently, a federal judge said he didn't have jurisdiction to hear an appeal on the constitutionality of removing her feeding tube. ) the circumstantial evidence against Michael Schiavo is simply horrifying. In the Court of Common Sense, he'd have been locked up and the key thrown away ten years ago. In the Court of Refined Legal Opinion, there apparently isn't even a case worth hearing.

[Saber Cherry]

Who cares? If my head was cut off and thrown in a garbage disposal, but my body was kept alive with tubes, would I care if my heart stopped beating? No.

Who gave the government the right to force families to waste their money on brainless lumps of flesh? I don't see that in the Constitution anywhere. Rather, I see that people have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... but a person is a thinking entity... and thus, brain-dead people, who can't make choices anymore, or have happiness, are no longer really people. So, for example, if I cut off my finger, it would not have any rights, because it is not a person. But let's pretend that brain-dead lumps of human flesh are actually people. Then I would say, the family of the lump of flesh has a right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, and being saddled with high medical bills that serve no purpose is a violation of their rights.

-Cherry

P.S. I'm not saying her husband isn't disgusting - maybe he is, I don't know him - but I don't see why vast amounts of resources should be wasted on the dead when there are live people starving and homeless. There are only finite resources, you know... and every million dollars spent on life-support of a corpse for a year is a million dollars that can't be used to feed 2,000 people at a soup kitchen for a year.

[ October 15, 2003, 22:21: Message edited by: Saber Cherry ]

[narf poit chez BOOM]

so, your convieneince takes precendence over another human life? well, your arguements are interferring with my enjoyment of life. should i get that sniper rifle now?

[Saber Cherry]

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
so, your convieneince takes precendence over another human life? well, your arguements are interferring with my enjoyment of life. should i get that sniper rifle now?

That's very insulting. But if I was brain-dead, then sure.