[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

I have a warped sense of credibility because I don't just accept every word from the Republican House Majority Leader's pen as gospel truth? That's rich.

No, you're sense is warped because you looked at the very first thing that popped up in the search and then called it a day:

http://www.indystar.com/articles/2/230925-3972-021.html

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentar...20050323e.html

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...642884,00.html

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/vi...18harmon.shtml

http://washingtontimes.com/national/...2257-1519r.htm

http://www.torontofreepress.com/2005/bates032305.htm

As for the relative value of the Church's opinon and Mr. Schiavo's, I call Bullshit. The Catholic Church isn't her legal guardian, he is. We aren't in Rome, we're in America - get over it.

Look, whatever your deal is, maybe mom and dad forced you to go to Church on Sunday's instead of watching cartoons, whatever it may be, I don't care. I never argued that the Church's stance had any bearing on this case. You should probably calm down and re-read it after you take a time out.

Also, the "he said, she said" testimony was a statement of no less than three people in court, which state and now federal courts found no reason to doubt.

You're right. And if the appeals court decides against her again (which will probably be moot anyway because she'll be dead by then), I'll respect that verdict. But she's entitled to that verdict, just like a death row inmate is entitled to appeal his/her case to a higher court.

Seems to me the heart of the controversy here is a fundamental disagreement of whether or not it is humane to end a suffering or wrecked "life". I would think you are old enough that you have witnessed a friend or family member die of a degenerative disease. If that person decided they could not bear any more, would you say "too bad, God wants you live, so we're keeping you plugged into the machines that'd you naturally die without"?

The issue is consent. Was it given, and how much proof is needed in any given state to prove it. She didn't have a living will. She was a young woman. She wasn't expecting a heart attack at such a young age. For all we know, like many of us flippantly say at random moments, she may have meant she wouldn't want to be kept alive by tubes and machines were she EIGHTY and in this state.

I know of a person who always said they never wanted kemotherapy if they got that sick. Eventually they did get that sick, and they got the kemo, and fought until their dying day.

Terri Schiavo doesn't need tubes to breath. She needs hydration and food, the same things we all need. According to people like you, who seem to feel comfortable deciding what life is worthy and unworthy, she's a vegetable. I think she at least deserves an MRI to determine how true that really is, no?

The parents have testified in court that EVEN IF Terri had made the wish to not be kept alive like this, they'd do it anyway.

Because they're her parents and they love her. The bottom line is that she didn't clearly leave these intentions. Her intentions have instead been decided by a man who stopped being her husband over a decade ago, a man who won a medical malpractice case worth more than $1 million, and claimed that he intended to use the cash to rehabilitate Terri.

Your merciful Church has made that their policy as well. So pardon me for being a "petulant child" when I express my DISGUST for the "holy" verdict of your religious institution.

Wah wah, do you feel better sniffles? You're the one who made this about the Church. I simply clarrified a point for Goat, and also explained how Terri's own faith should/would have a deciding factor in what maybe would've been her own intentions. If a Quaker dodged the draft on religious grounds, would you dismiss his faith as irrelevant.....?

If Congress had an emergency session to force a women who wanted an abortion, in a state where abortion is legal, to delay the abortion til a Federal Court could hear it because her parents wanted her to keep the baby, I'd be pretty appalled. If Congress had an emergency session to keep two gay people from getting married I'd just be baffled.

Yeah, take your logic, and flip it. Eleven gay marriage bans were approved by states in the 2004 election. Do you think gay marriage should be a national entitlement, or are you cool with the state's right to bar such practices...?

The federal government made federal cases out of integration, and sent federal forces to enforce integration, ignoring the will of the states.

There are times when the civil and constitutional rights of a citizen are brought into question, and the federal government has, and SHOULD act.

Originally Posted by Max

My point has nothing to do with wether the tube should stay in or out, and since I'm not a neurologist or an ethicist, I refuse to weigh in. My point is the R's used this families misery as a football, and I'm revolted, and the D's were too scared to say so and I'm disgusted.

I'll have to respectfully disagree. If anything, the GOP is taking a hit from this. It's hard to find a public opinion poll that supports what Congress did on Sunday. Bill Frist will see his stupid "well as a physician" comments thrown back in his face in 2008.

The Democrats who were opposed to this bill were quite vocal, and some made very eloquent arguments. I don't know how many of the critics on this boardactually watched the debate on the House floor, but the arguments made for both sides were some of the best I've seen from these typically dull and dry opportunists. If anything, the quiet Democrats were the Harold Ford, Jr.'s of the House, those who truly supported this bill (as did I), but are routinely too scared to say anything that might upset Pelosi.

And why would any Republican, PARTICULARLY Tom DeLay (who you should all know I don't care for) need to throw a bone to his base....? Did you follow his Fall race in Sugar Land???? Tom DeLay doesn't need to impress his base any further.