I don't want to start any DRAWMUH~! but since this is the story that's going to dominate the news I figure we might as well discuss it here.

 

Now everyone knows how my politics go, so hearing that I support removal of her feeding tube probably doesn't shock anyone. You might be surprised how I came to that decison.

 

First off, a brain scan reveals most of Terri's cerebral cortex has liquified, meaning there's nothing but spinal fluid in the center of her brain. She still has an intact brain stem so automatic functions like heartbeat and breathing continue, but she has no mechanism to swallow (hence the tube), communicate, or even feel pain. There's simply no avenue for the processes. People on the news saying she's aware and feeling the pain of starvation are simply not factually correct. Even if she was able to feel pain, the hospice she's in would make sure she doesn't suffer.

 

Back to why I came to my conclusion: I was involved in almost the same situation. Some of you are aware that my girlfriend's father died right before Christmas 2004. What happened is he had an aneurysm deep in his brain and caused a major stroke. Even if they were to operate and remove the clot, he would have been severely impaired for life. He definately wouldn't have been able to walk and probably wouldn't have been able to talk either. The operation alone had a very high chance of killing him. We (well not me, but his wife and children) had to decide what to do. He was being kept in a coma because as someone with deep brain injury he was making thrashing movements in the bed like someone having a bad dream (sound familiar yet?).

 

The problem is that his wife at first interpreted the movements as a sign that he still had mobility. This is where my story and the Schindler/Shiavo story parts ways. The doctors explained to her that it was just a symptom of deep brain injury and not a sign of any potential mobility. She understood this, rather than keeping up false hope that any movement is a sign of potential recovery.

 

Sadly, when they tried to bring him out of the induced coma, his brain showed no sgn of healing after the initial swelling went down and he had another series of strokes before they finally decided to let him go. Fortunately, there was no politically motivated slimeballs willing to turn our tragedy into their own cause for gain. We didn't get turned into a media circus, nor did the President sign a bill making us keep him hooked up to life support (he didn't have a living will either).

 

But you know what? Letting him go was absolutely the right choice. Yes it sucked not having him around, but keeping him alive but as a shell of himself would have been a worse fate than death for someone like him who liked the outdoors. We all came to terms with the fact that his life was for all intents and purposes over when he had the initial stroke. Keeping him alive just because we weren't ready for him to go at age 54 would be the most selfish thing I could think of.

What bugs me is that the court system has clearly ruled on the case, and that Terri's parents continually bring about legislation and court appeals to halt the process. I understand and respect their position, but some of these have been astinine, and they are just wasting everyone's time.

 

Jeb Bush has been particularly fun through all this.

I'm in complete agreement with Sek on this. The fact that the pro-lifers are coming out of the woodworks to make this thing baffles me. One is not like the other.

 

I know it must be hell for the parents but the only physician who said the woman wasn't brain-dead was the nut from the right-wing Christian group... and he didn't even give her an actual exam. He just spent a few minutes in her room.

 

But this isn't abnout politics, right? I have a sinking feeling this is going to be the topic that springboards Bush's agenda to overturn Roe v. Wade.

 

Another thing that bothers me are the fucking idiots comparing this to the Holocaust and the parents who allowed their 8 year old to get locked up in Juvenile. What the fuck !?!?!!!

 

On a personal level, my mother had a stroke when I was 17. She was in a coma for two weeks and when it became clear she was going to be a vegatable, we knew it was time to let her go. It is now time to let Terry go. Fuck, I shouldn't even know her name. It never should have gotten this far.

But this isn't abnout politics, right? I have a sinking feeling this is going to be the topic that springboards Bush's agenda to overturn Roe v. Wade.

 

Especially since Randall Terry, the parent's spokesman, is the former (?) head of Operation Life. If that name rings a bell, its because they used to blow up abortion clinics.

 

That's another thing that puzzles me about these groups. Terri's husband and the judge in Florida are both getting death threats. Is that how they further their case? I'm pro life and if you do something we don't like, we'll kill you?

But this isn't abnout politics, right? I have a sinking feeling this is going to be the topic that springboards Bush's agenda to overturn Roe v. Wade.

As much as I don't like Bush, I don't think his motives were sinister (maybe too strong a word) in this case. It seemed like he made a token gesture to satisfy his Christian conservative base, and that was that.

Its not so much Bush (who's wisely washing his hands of the matter) as it is the Christian right pushing this. They played a major role in getting a lot of Republicans elected and they want this as their payback. Randall Terry all but threatened Jeb Bush to overstep his bounds and take control or there would be consequences.

Some of you may know that I'm pretty conservative on many matters but this is not one of them. I hate that she has to starve to death but for all intents and purposes she's been dead since the day she has her heart attack. I hate that both pro-lifers and the pro-choice crowd are using this to push their agendas rather than to just let the woman die in peace. I'd be willing to bet that her husband would know better than her parents what Terri would have wanted as he spent a large portion of her adult life with her. I've also hear that he has been offered millions ot walk away and let the feeding tube stay in and he has refused it (I think it was Nightline or Dateline that reported it). If this is true than he obviously still cares for her and wants what he feels that she would want.

 

I think it is past time to let her go. She'll be better off where ever she ends up (I don't know what religion she practiced if any).

Sek pretty much nailed it on the head, but actually, recent surveys have shown that most evangelicals don't even agree with the government intervention here.

I'm just sick of how politicized this thing has become. I'm relieved that every single federal judge that has heard this case hasn't tried to overstep their bounds and rule for the parents, who haven't supplied a single shred of evidence that is contrary to her husband's stance that she didn't want to be in the condition she is now. That "Well, she ALMOST said she didn't want to die, but we've just forgot to provide that evidence until now."

 

$20 says someone tries to bring her husband up on murder charges an hour after she dies.

 

I'm not going to dump on W for this either, since really the only time I've heard him involved in this was signing that bill passed by Congress to have a federal hearing.

 

The lesson kids: Living wills are a good idea.

Meg brought the living will idea up to me. I said, "I don't know what I even want yet. Surprise me."

I am also in agreement. Hopefully this will be a groundbreaking case - if you think about how many people in a vegetative state are kept alive in developed countries, and the cost of keeping them alive, how much of an effect would that money have if spent on starving/uneducated children around the world?

The lesson kids: Living wills are a good idea.

It would make almost no difference. Families fight over wills all the time. My dad is a lawyer, he's had to deal with this shit for years. The parents still could have tied it up in court.

 

Fla Supreme Court just denied another attempt by the parents as I typed this. It's apparently the "final appeal" so after she dies in a week, we'll only haveto hear about for about another month before it comes bakc up for the mid-term elections.

Its not so much Bush (who's wisely washing his hands of the matter) as it is the Christian right pushing this. They played a major role in getting a lot of Republicans elected and they want this as their payback. Randall Terry all but threatened Jeb Bush to overstep his bounds and take control or there would be consequences.

Add to the fact that most of the judges who have ruled against the parents are REPUBLICANS and it baffles me even more when people claim the judicial system is abusing its power?!?!

 

I hate that both pro-lifers and the pro-choice crowd are using this to push their agendas rather than to just let the woman die in peace.

Whoa whoa whoa. I haven't seen or heard ANY pro-choice group, including the Democrats who have been silent throughout, even so much breathe an opinion that relates to this case. Most have remained mum on the issue becasuse the two are NOT related. If anything, the only reaction was a reaction to comments directed by anti-choice groups to relate this case and abortion when they are apples and oranges.

 

 

I've also hear that he has been offered millions ot walk away and let the feeding tube stay in and he has refused it (I think it was Nightline or Dateline that reported it). If this is true than he obviously still cares for her and wants what he feels that she would want.

This guy has been absolutely villified by right-wing media. Although, it was my understanding that he received a huge lump sum of money long ago in a lawsuit. But you are right. He could have easily walked away long ago if he didn't care for her. He could have washed his hands from the whole situation but chose to stay by his wife.

 

 

Its not so much Bush (who's wisely washing his hands of the matter) as it is the Christian right pushing this.

I'm not going to dump on W for this either, since really the only time I've heard him involved in this was signing that bill passed by Congress to have a federal hearing.

I actually agree with him signing the federal hearing bill. Fuck it, lets give it one last ditch ruling and let it be settled. It was heard, settled and set in stone. Now let the woman die in peace!!!

I hate that both pro-lifers and the pro-choice crowd are using this to push their agendas rather than to just let the woman die in peace.

Whoa whoa whoa. I haven't seen or heard ANY pro-choice group, including the Democrats who have been silent throughout, even so much breathe an opinion that relates to this case. Most have remained mum on the issue becasuse the two are NOT related. If anything, the only reaction was a reaction to comments directed by anti-choice groups to relate this case and abortion when they are apples and oranges.

 

 

 

Nope, no agenda with terms like "anti-choice" or other such shit. GH, I'm pro-choice, yet somehow I don't find the need to call people something that they don't wish to be called. If I were pro-life, I wouldn't refer to pro-choicers as "pro-death." They wish to be called pro-life and that is what they are on the issue of abortion and apparently feeding tubes being removed from a vegetable.

 

I will readily admit that it is mostly the Christian Right Pro-lifers who have been outspoken about this (mainly because most Democrats don't have enough balls to stand up and speak on what they truly beleive, which in this case they probably should because I think it is in line with much of the country) but the opposing view has been heard, numerous times and is actually backed up by a tonof doctors who have examined this woman and have detremined that she is basically dead now.

 

And the two issues are related, especially from a pro-life person's point of view. They contend that they value all human life and that it should not be destroyed for any reason. Whether they are consistant or not is not the issue. It is what they say and as such the Schiavo case and abortion are related in their opinion. Either way linking the two won't really cause anybody to change their position on abortion, so for all the people who freak out that Row v. Wade will be overturned everytime anything happens can calm down now. It will never be overturned and if it is it will make very little difference in most of the country. Abortion was not constitutionally banned (it was illegal in some states, Texas included, which is where "Jane Roe" was from when [i believe] Planned Parenthood found her adn used her to push their agenda) before 1972 and will not be even if the case is overturned.

 

I've also hear that he has been offered millions ot walk away and let the feeding tube stay in and he has refused it (I think it was Nightline or Dateline that reported it). If this is true than he obviously still cares for her and wants what he feels that she would want.

This guy has been absolutely villified by right-wing media. Although, it was my understanding that he received a huge lump sum of money long ago in a lawsuit. But you are right. He could have easily walked away long ago if he didn't care for her. He could have washed his hands from the whole situation but chose to stay by his wife.

I'm sure that Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and maybe O'Reilly have blasted the guy, I don't really pay much attention to them. But, I've yet to hear a negative thing said about him in the liberal media on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, or basically the rest of the media outside of the conservative Fox News.

I hadn't heard about a lawsuit settlement, any idea what it was about?

Personally, if it were my decision, I would have unplugged her from the feeding tube 15 years ago. However, by law, it's her husband's decision. No matter what he decided, I would have said it was the right decision for her, because ultimately it is HIS decision to make. What bothers me the most is how all the Republicans jumped on to this bandwagon in order to pander to all the Christian pro-lifers. Had the courts actually put back the tube after the Senate and President Bush's late night passing of "the law that only helps Terri Schiavo and no other American citizen", I truly would have been sick. Thank god, finally there came a point where someone in this godforsaken government stood up and said that this is completely absurd. Let the woman die already and let her husband make the decision. By marrying him, she gave him that right, end of story. I really cannot wait until she croaks already so I'll never have to hear about all this crap again. Like those young people who tried running water up to her, and were arrested for it. Those poor kids have been brainwashed by their lunatic, self-righteous parents, and that disturbs me just as much as President Bush waking up after midnight to sign a bill solely to potentially keep THIS AND ONLY THIS woman alive indefinetly. Nice to see his approval rating plummet though. I believe he hit 43% this week.

Nope, no agenda with terms like "anti-choice" or other such shit. GH, I'm pro-choice, yet somehow I don't find the need to call people something that they don't wish to be called.

That's pure bullshit. Liberals (who would prefer to be called progressives) are accused of being commies, hippies, or any other duragatory name they can come up with yet you pick this to be offended about? The abortion issue is a question that the opposite sides will refuse to see the other side until there can be a concensus on when life begins... at conception or birth. Whether (in your terms) pro-lifers want to be called anti-choice or not isn't any of my concern. They are AGAINST (anti) a woman's CHOICE to do what she wants with her body. The term is valid.

 

And for my left-leaning ways, I don't support or advocate or condone or endorse abortion but I think a woman has the right to choose. I fully support adoption (one choice) but I also understand that a child in a foster home becomes a ward of the state and someone has got to foot the bill to take care of these kids until they are actually adopted... the govt. Too bad conservative moral policy conflicts with their social and ecnomic agenda.

 

will readily admit that it is mostly the Christian Right Pro-lifers who have been outspoken about this (mainly because most Democrats don't have enough balls to stand up and speak on what they truly beleive, which in this case they probably should because I think it is in line with much of the country) but the opposing view has been heard, numerous times and is actually backed up by a tonof doctors who have examined this woman and have detremined that she is basically dead now.

Once again, who? Where? I haven't heard any quotes or opinions from pro-choice groups in the paper or the networks. Maybe it's on someone's blog or internet news site. The opposing view on allowing the woman to die in peace isn't coming from pro-choice groups. It's coming from groups that are detached from the abortion issue.

 

And the two issues are related, especially from a pro-life person's point of view. They contend that they value all human life and that it should not be destroyed for any reason.

Yet they support the death penalty and the war in Iraq? Hypocrites?

 

Whether they are consistant or not is not the issue. It is what they say and as such the Schiavo case and abortion are related in their opinion.

We all have opinions. Just like assholes. Opinions can be wrong. And being consistent is a concern. It is selective rallying and it screams of political pandering.

 

Either way linking the two won't really cause anybody to change their position on abortion

Agreed

 

so for all the people who freak out that Row v. Wade will be overturned everytime anything happens can calm down now. It will never be overturned and if it is it will make very little difference in most of the country. Abortion was not constitutionally banned (it was illegal in some states, Texas included, which is where "Jane Roe" was from when [i believe] Planned Parenthood found her adn used her to push their agenda) before 1972 and will not be even if the case is overturned.

So it will only make a difference in the bible belt, the deep south, and the dust bowl? I hope it isn't overturned but if it is, right-wing and left-wing alike will feel the effects. And after all of the back-alley abortions and abandoned babies will litter the landscape, who will be left footing the bill? Are Republicans willing to accept a tax-hike to cover the new social crisis? Probably not. Once again, lets hope we never find out.

 

I'm sure that Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and maybe O'Reilly have blasted the guy, I don't really pay much attention to them. But, I've yet to hear a negative thing said about him in the liberal media on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, or basically the rest of the media outside of the conservative Fox News.

 

You know, I know a bunch of Republicans who know those guys (Rush, Sean, O'reilly, Coulter) are full of shit (hence your "I don't listen to them") but they sure like having them on the airwaves.

 

And the liberal media myth has already been dissected and dissolved. On CNN today... every (EVERY SINGLE ONE) commercial break was filled with George Bush's offering a plan on Social Security while the Democrats have offered none. Support W.!!!! They could have refused to air the commercial. Oh yeah, I forgot. The liberal media is only as liberal as their conservative owner allows them to be. Or maybe they like to hide under the guise of "social liberal but a fiscal conservative."

 

In fact, it was today, on CNN (OMG liberal media) where the pundits came out of the woodworks to attack this guy. I watched CNN from about noon until 4:00 while burning CDs and I thought the guy was the anti-Christ afterwards.

 

 

I hadn't heard about a lawsuit settlement, any idea what it was about?

 

I'll have to ask my wife tomorrow. She was the one telling me about it.

Nope, no agenda with terms like "anti-choice" or other such shit. GH, I'm pro-choice, yet somehow I don't find the need to call people something that they don't wish to be called.

That's pure bullshit. Liberals (who would prefer to be called progressives) are accused of being commies, hippies, or any other duragatory name they can come up with yet you pick this to be offended about? The abortion issue is a question that the opposite sides will refuse to see the other side until there can be a concensus on when life begins... at conception or birth. Whether (in your terms) pro-lifers want to be called anti-choice or not isn't any of my concern. They are AGAINST (anti) a woman's CHOICE to do what she wants with her body. The term is valid.

 

 

Liberals are not "progressive" in just about anyway, so that is not a valid term IMO and "liberal" while not entirely acurate is an excepted term so I use that. But to call someone who feels that life begins at conception and does not wish for a baby to be murdered (their opinion, not mine) "anti-choice" is a little over-the-top. I'll get to the left's version of choice later.

 

And for my left-leaning ways, I don't support or advocate or condone or endorse abortion but I think a woman has the right to choose. I fully support adoption (one choice) but I also understand that a child in a foster home becomes a ward of the state and someone has got to foot the bill to take care of these kids until they are actually adopted... the govt.? Too bad conservative moral policy conflicts with their social and ecnomic agenda.

I agree with you.

 

will readily admit that it is mostly the Christian Right Pro-lifers who have been outspoken about this (mainly because most Democrats don't have enough balls to stand up and speak on what they truly beleive, which in this case they probably should because I think it is in line with much of the country) but the opposing view has been heard, numerous times and is actually backed up by a tonof doctors who have examined this woman and have detremined that she is basically dead now.

Once again, who? Where? I haven't heard any quotes or opinions from pro-choice groups in the paper or the networks. Maybe it's on someone's blog or internet news site. The opposing view on allowing the woman to die in peace isn't coming from pro-choice groups. It's coming from groups that are detached from the abortion issue.

I have heard several pro-choice groups come out, claim that this is not an abosrtion issue and then go right into their diatribes about abortion.

 

And the two issues are related, especially from a pro-life person's point of view. They contend that they value all human life and that it should not be destroyed for any reason.

Yet they support the death penalty and the war in Iraq? Hypocrites?

Look to the next quote from me, I already covered it with "Whether they are consistant or not is not the issue". And no not all Christian groups support the death penalty or the war in Iraq. That is an over-generalization.

 

But if we are going to over-generalize and talk about hypocracy then lets talk about these "pro-choice" people. Are they pro-choice when it comes to Social Security vs. private accounts? How about smoking in restaurants? Taxation? Death penalty? Fox News? (the station you have a parental lock on), etc... No one is perfectly consistant when every issue is compared, it is an impossibility.

 

Whether they are consistant or not is not the issue. It is what they say and as such the Schiavo case and abortion are related in their opinion.

We all have opinions. Just like assholes. Opinions can be wrong. And being consistent is a concern. It is selective rallying and it screams of political pandering.

I agree with you. And all sides do it, I've learned to live with it and not get riled up with righteous indignation everytime the predictable happens. Unless it has to do with HHH.

 

Either way linking the two won't really cause anybody to change their position on abortion

Agreed

That's three things we've agreed on. I have to go back to college so I can learn to be more disgreeable to liberals again. I'm actually very socially liberal and much more of a libertrian than Republican.

 

so for all the people who freak out that Row v. Wade will be overturned everytime anything happens can calm down now. It will never be overturned and if it is it will make very little difference in most of the country. Abortion was not constitutionally banned (it was illegal in some states, Texas included, which is where "Jane Roe" was from when [i believe] Planned Parenthood found her adn used her to push their agenda) before 1972 and will not be even if the case is overturned.

So it will only make a difference in the bible belt, the deep south, and the dust bowl? I hope it isn't overturned but if it is, right-wing and left-wing alike will feel the effects. And after all of the back-alley abortions and abandoned babies will litter the landscape, who will be left footing the bill? Are Republicans willing to accept a tax-hike to cover the new social crisis? Probably not. Once again, lets hope we never find out.

This is the type of reaction that makes you lose credibility. The overturning of a (unwarranted, if you've read the Constitution) court decision will not end the world or cause a massive social crisis. Will abortion laws be more restrictive is some places? Yes. Should they be? Probably. Will some states ban abortion? Possibly, but doubtful.

 

I'm sure that Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and maybe O'Reilly have blasted the guy, I don't really pay much attention to them. But, I've yet to hear a negative thing said about him in the liberal media on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, or basically the rest of the media outside of the conservative Fox News.

 

You know, I know a bunch of Republicans who know those guys (Rush, Sean, O'reilly, Coulter) are full of shit (hence your "I don't listen to them") but they sure like having them on the airwaves.

It's not that they are full of any more shit than any other blowhard, I've just heard everything they have to say and I'm no longer interested in the constant reptition.

 

And the liberal media myth has already been dissected and dissolved. On CNN today... every (EVERY SINGLE ONE) commercial break was filled with George Bush's offering a plan on Social Security while the Democrats have offered none. Support W.!!!! They could have refused to air the commercial. Oh yeah, I forgot. The liberal media is only as liberal as their conservative owner allows them to be. Or maybe they like to hide under the guise of "social liberal but a fiscal conservative."

By whom has this "myth" been dissected and dissolved? The liberal media? Why is it that many conservatives have no problem admitting that Fox tilts right but almost no liberals wil admit to the left biason the other networks? Are you guys that oblivious to it or just in denial?

 

Who is the conservative founder of CNN? Ted Turner? CNN, MSNBC, CBS, et al are news channels and have editorial control over the news they broadcast and anchors adn reporters are hired by those channels, not the parent companies. Those channels are run by liberals who hire liberals who then report the news through their liberal perspective. Most of the time they probably don't even realize that they are doing it.

 

When someone like Dan Rather refers to the NY Times editorial page as "middle of the road" and then refers to his own news in a similar manner he has proven my point. The NY Times, much like their sister publication the Boston Globe (which is delivered to my house everyday) has one "conservative" editorialist (who writes 3 columns a week and then has 30 letters published that call him an asshole and the rest of the OP ED page is all left wing, all the time.

 

I suppose, what I can't figure out is why I can see certain things I agree with for what they are (right/left/center) and many on the left sees their views as "middle of the road" when they are most certainly not.

 

In fact, it was today, on CNN (OMG liberal media) where the pundits came out of the woodworks to attack this guy. I watched CNN from about noon until 4:00 while burning CDs and I thought the guy was the anti-Christ afterwards.

I haven't watched CNN in a long time. Maybe they've started to pander to the right.

 

 

I hadn't heard about a lawsuit settlement, any idea what it was about?

 

I'll have to ask my wife tomorrow. She was the one telling me about it.

Please do. This is pretty much the only part of this case that I find interesting any more.

Michael Shiavo won a settlement against the hospital Terri was admittted to after her heart attack. They failed to diagnose her bullimia as the factor that led to the potassium deficiency that caused her heart attack.

 

Yes, ironically this all started because she was starving herself.

 

However the settlement was for less than the usual millions people in these case get, due to her being partially responisble for the condition she found herself in. The money he did get went to medical and later legal bills.

 

There was also the offer her parents made to give him money (I've heard anywhere from 1 to 10 million as the amount) to just walk away. He turned the offer down because (despite what you hear now) it isn't about money, it's about doing what he feels his wife's wishes are. He's said that hearing her parents testify that they'd amputate all her limbs and perform open heart surgery if thats what it took to keep her alive is what spurred him to fight to get her tube removed. It was at that point he realized that her parents are in an extreme state of denial over her condition and just want to keep her alive because they can't accept that there's nothing there but a shell.

 

 

On edit, as far as the "liberal media" goes, I've seen nothing but people bashing the husband and questioning his motives on CNN, Headline News, Court TV, and of course Fox. Larry King had fucking Pat Boone on his show almost every day since the tube was pulled because Pat's grandson recovered from a completely different brain injury and thus this makes him an expert on Terri Shiavo. Not to mention NBC has been running a "Faith in America" segment on their evening news when there's all sorts of religious crazies getting involved in this. I can't even begin to count the number of completely unqualified people on every channel making their own diagnosis of Terri without ever seeing her in person. The number of people who insist there's no way to tell what state she's in when there's MRIs that show her cerebral cortex is mostly liquid. The people who think that it's possible to feel pain with the part of the brain required to process pain missing. The people who think praying to Jesus will make that missing part grow back.

 

Like I said to a co-worker, if someone treated their dog the way Terri's parents are treating her, they'd be arrested for abuse.

Liberals are not "progressive" in just about anyway, so that is not a valid term IMO and "liberal" while not entirely acurate is an excepted term so I use that.

The whole basis of the progressive platform is to make the govt. work for the people. Lets see... civil rights movement, women's suffrage, abolition movement, labor movement, anti-war movement ... all liberal/progressive platforms.

 

But to call someone who feels that life begins at conception and does not wish for a baby to be murdered (their opinion, not mine) "anti-choice" is a little over-the-top. I'll get to the left's version of choice later.

It isn't over-the-top. My referring to conservatives as fascists is over-the-top.. and it is done simply to expose the hypocrisy. Name-calling is valid for one side yet absurd or ridiculous for the other?

 

I have heard several pro-choice groups come out, claim that this is not an abosrtion issue and then go right into their diatribes about abortion.

Once again, who? Where? What specific groups?

 

I am not disputing that it hasn't been done. I just want to have a reference point.

 

Look to the next quote from me, I already covered it with "Whether they are consistant or not is not the issue". And no not all Christian groups support the death penalty or the war in Iraq. That is an over-generalization.

Sure, just as all liberasl do not suport the removal of Terry's feeding tube (ex. Ralph Nader)

 

But if we are going to over-generalize and talk about hypocracy then lets talk about these "pro-choice" people.

We can branch out...

 

Are they pro-choice when it comes to Social Security vs. private accounts?

I love this debate on social security. Everyone argues about the crisis yet everyone ignores the intention of the program. Social Security is intended to be a supplemental income for your retirement so the elderly aren't a drain on society. You pay into it and receive a portion (or depending on your income) more than you paid.

 

It is also convenient how people ignore the other parts of the social security system such as unemployment. How are those people standing in the unemployment line going to sustain any semblance of a quality of life when Big Business (protected by big govt. ) makes cuts and lays off thousands at a time?

 

What about the disabled that are also protected under Social Security?

 

what about the children in need who lose a parent before their 18th B-Day (such as myself) and receive a check to help ease the burden of the widow?

 

We conveniently ignore these sections.

 

We also ignore the fact that you do have a choice... a choice to invest in personal savings AND receive Social Security or the choice to receive ONLY Social Security.

 

The big issue isn't the amount of money coming into the system. It is the way the surplus is being used. My God man... how in the hell do you think W. wants to pay for this ridiculous war, have tax breaks for the rich, and shirk the responsibility??? By dipping his grubby hands into the fucking Scial Security System. In his budget proposal, he expects to pay for it by taking money out of the fucking surplus and more while trying to pass this hokey-ass plan that if as positive as the Reps would have us believe, there would be no need for, because the rosy economy would mean that Social Security would be taking in more than projected. In other words, lets paint a rosy future of the economy for private accounts but a bleak one for staying the course. I fucking watched the damn Secratary of the Treasury on CSPAN answer questions from some committee and he admitted that the way W. planned on accounting for his budget was by dipping his hands into the surplus. "But of course, we'll pay it back"

 

Clearly, the American people do not pay into Social Security system for this purpose. How about passing initiatives that prevent the American govt. (Dems and Reps alike) from fucking with money that should not be touched? I teach Social Security. I know the ins, outs, ups, downs. The crisis is for that people aren't willing to admit that some social programs are necessities (and cost money) and is the price we pay for living in a cvilized society. Would the same right-to-life groups be rallying for support for feeding the numerous many that would be starving and left behind after this supplement is taken away?

 

How about smoking in restaurants?

I am a smoker. I live in Texas. I can't smoke in any fucking restaurants save for one Luby's with a smoking section. What does this have to do with anything? The fact that big tobacco is a lobbyist for the Republican party and pumps millions of duckets into the GOP? That liberals passed the initiative to ban smoking in public places? This brings up another question... do you believe second-hand smoke has negative affecs on the non-smoker besides making their clothes smell? If you believe second-hand smoke is health threatening then public health has priority to the smoker's right to light up. Even I can accept this.

 

Death penalty?

How is the death penalty a choice? The convicted get to choose if they live or die? Are you talking at the state level? At the federal level? Elaborate.

 

On a sidenote, I support a death penalty, I just don't agree with the way it is implemented. I live in a state that has more executions than any other in the Union. Many are probably justified. If the death penalty wasn't subjective in who gets the axe, I would have no problems with it at all. Sadly, statistics show that minorites are more likely to receive the death penalty than whites. There needs to be a more concrete and color-blind implementation. Severity of crime, intention, repeat offender, etc. If a black man kills three kids and a white woman kills three kids, they both should be axed. Sadly, our system isn't set up to be so objective.

 

Fox News? (the station you have a parental lock on),

We clearly have a choice on this. We can watch or not watch. This doesn't even make sense.

 

Sidenote: My daughter is one years old (as of yesterday!) so the parental lock thing is for my convenience as I exercise my right to choose.

 

Taxation?

You'll have to elaborate here.

 

I'm actually very socially liberal and much more of a libertrian than Republican.

Do you support the legalization of drugs? The absence of govt. funding for schools, roads, etc.? Do you just want the govt. to stay out of our private lives and stop pushing radical theological agendas? Just want to have a better understanding of how libertarian you really are.

 

This is the type of reaction that makes you lose credibility. The overturning of a (unwarranted, if you've read the Constitution) court decision will not end the world or cause a massive social crisis.

Um.. I teach the Constitution. History clearly shows that court cases usually show effects over a period of time. Some are immediate but take generations to act on (Plessy v. Ferguson). Overturning a law can have huge consequences, positive (Brown v. Board) or negative.

 

Will abortion laws be more restrictive is some places? Yes. Should they be? Probably.

Right... if they are restrictive now, how would they be if the right to choose isn't protected.

 

Will some states ban abortion? Possibly, but doubtful.

Once again, I listed large parts of the country that would probably be privy to such bannings. If banned, abortion issues will be huge in those states.

 

It's not that they are full of any more shit than any other blowhard, I've just heard everything they have to say and I'm no longer interested in the constant reptition.

Right, like Dan Rather who conservatives love to use as their whipping post.

 

By whom has this "myth" been dissected and dissolved? The liberal media? Why is it that many conservatives have no problem admitting that Fox tilts right but almost no liberals wil admit to the left biason the other networks? Are you guys that oblivious to it or just in denial?

Dissected and dissolved by obvious liberals who decided to investigate the truth about the presentation of the term "liberal media" into the national conscience. Say something long enough and it becomes true.

 

You claim Fox tilts right, while still referring to them as a news organization, instead of a propaganda machine. What issues are the other outlets supporting a leftist agenda?

 

Social Security? Not a whisper.

 

The war In Iraq? As all of them refer to the soldiers fighting for our freedom.

 

The records of Bush's nominees to Atty General, Sec. of Education, etc.?

 

The travesty of private school vouchers instituted by the govt. or the piss-poor excuse for an education policy known as NCLB? *crickets*

 

The deregulation of big business? Fuck no, the media IS big business.

 

There is no denial. It doesn't exist. The "liberal" media is as corporate as corporate gets. The op-eds in the outdated print media mean dick. Of course the New York Times and Boston Globe are liberal. It panders to its audience... decidedly liberal cities. The same way the Houston Chronicle is conservative.

 

What organizations are the networks getting their quotes from these days? Mayo? Manhattan Institute? Heritage Foundation? Oops. How dare that liberal media get talking points from Rep. Think Tanks with conservative agendas and skewed data.

 

I mean, really,the left bias has stopped meaning the pushing of an agenda for progressive reform and now means not towing the govt. line with the Bush administration. Anything not deemed Bush-favorable is a liberal bias? Give me a fucking break. Clinton was crucified by all of the networks when he was President... but damn that liberal media.

 

 

Who is the conservative founder of CNN? Ted Turner?

What role does Turner play in CNN now?

 

CNN, MSNBC, CBS, et al are news channels and have editorial control over the news they broadcast and anchors adn reporters are hired by those channels, not the parent companies. Those channels are run by liberals who hire liberals who then report the news through their liberal perspective. Most of the time they probably don't even realize that they are doing it.

Hold on there slick. Almost all of the research done by Rep. Think Tanks was based on polls CONDUCTED IN THE 70's of actual anchors. On social issues, they leaned liberal but in fiscal matters they leaned right, because lets face it, rich liberal journalists don't like paying taxes either. I haven't found any polls or research data that has given any indication of the political affiliation of the administration of Media Networks. i mean fuck, for every Dan Rather liberal blabber, I could give a Rather quote that could be construed as conservative. I mean, really, the big difference in groups like CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC etc. vs. Fox is that they actually give BOTH sides. They have their conservative pundits sitting net to the liberal quacks. And that is really in talking points conversations only. Watch the liberal media and the quotes and sources for most of their stories. They ain't coming from liberal watchdog groups.

 

You also seem to think that I agree with this my side/ your side type of journalism. I don't. I think it is complete horseshit all around the board. I don't trust big media because ultimately big media is owned by big business. and if nothing else, I am consistent.

 

I haven't watched CNN in a long time. Maybe they've started to pander to the right.

Of course they have been pandering to the right. All of the liberal networks you have mentioned have been.

 

Please do. This is pretty much the only part of this case that I find interesting any more.

Agreed. I was really split until I heard there was no financial gain for the husband from his wife's death. And then to be married for 15 years while she stayed in that state. I have sympathy for that guy. Fuck, I have sympathy for the family too but I still think NOONE here should have even known who Terry Shiavo was.

From the L.A. Times...

 

Delay 's Own Tragic Crossroads

Liberals are not "progressive" in just about anyway, so that is not a valid term IMO and "liberal" while not entirely acurate is an excepted term so I use that.

The whole basis of the progressive platform is to make the govt. work for the people. Lets see... civil rights movement, women's suffrage, abolition movement, labor movement, anti-war movement ... all liberal/progressive platforms.

 

 

The abolitionist movement was a Republican intiative. And the others, save the anti-war thing are all 30 plus year old movements. I frankly, would look at the War in Iraq as a progressive step. It was a proactive move towards freedom in the world and preventing possible terrorist strikes. And that is how I have always looked at it above and beyond WMDs or lack there of. Take a look at the "prgressive" agenda now. Raising taxes across the board, which in effect hurts the vast, vast majority of Americans in order to redistribute that money to the poor, which makes them dependent upon it and does nothign to help them long term. It is a band-aid that hurts far more people than it helps. Where is the forward progression? And more Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 64.

 

Ideas like Social Security reform are progressive steps to stave off the eventual death of the system. Liberals have done nothing but try to prtect the status quo, which according to them is something that only convervatives do. The Social Security system is, according to just about every expert I seen or read about 40 years from falling apart. The President has proposed an idea that would potentially help to stop that.

 

But to call someone who feels that life begins at conception and does not wish for a baby to be murdered (their opinion, not mine) "anti-choice" is a little over-the-top. I'll get to the left's version of choice later.

It isn't over-the-top. My referring to conservatives as fascists is over-the-top.. and it is done simply to expose the hypocrisy. Name-calling is valid for one side yet absurd or ridiculous for the other?

 

I have heard several pro-choice groups come out, claim that this is not an abosrtion issue and then go right into their diatribes about abortion.

Once again, who? Where? What specific groups?

 

I am not disputing that it hasn't been done. I just want to have a reference point.

I don't remember the names of the groups. I pay little attention to anybody who refers to himself as an "activist". That term generally translates to meaning "full of shit and willing to lie their asses off to get what they want" and that goes for both sides.

 

Look to the next quote from me, I already covered it with "Whether they are consistant or not is not the issue". And no not all Christian groups support the death penalty or the war in Iraq. That is an over-generalization.

Sure, just as all liberasl do not suport the removal of Terry's feeding tube (ex. Ralph Nader)

That was my point.

 

Are they pro-choice when it comes to Social Security vs. private accounts?

I love this debate on social security. Everyone argues about the crisis yet everyone ignores the intention of the program. Social Security is intended to be a supplemental income for your retirement so the elderly aren't a drain on society. You pay into it and receive a portion (or depending on your income) more than you paid.

How many people get more than they pay in? What percentage? It is an unfair system.

 

It is also convenient how people ignore the other parts of the social security system such as unemployment. How are those people standing in the unemployment line going to sustain any semblance of a quality of life when Big Business (protected by big govt. ) makes cuts and lays off thousands at a time?

Unemployment payments are not fincanced by social security. These evil businesses that you speak off are the ones who pay that tax.

 

What about the disabled that are also protected under Social Security?

 

what about the children in need who lose a parent before their 18th B-Day (such as myself) and receive a check to help ease the burden of the widow?

They will still be covered as far as I have heard. Everybody will still have to pay some social security tax whether they get private accounts or not.

 

We conveniently ignore these sections.

Yes, apparently those opposed to it do ignore those sections.

 

We also ignore the fact that you do have a choice... a choice to invest in personal savings AND receive Social Security or the choice to receive ONLY Social Security.

But, one does not have a chocie as to how much the government steals from them, thus reducing their ability to have private accounts.

 

The big issue isn't the amount of money coming into the system. It is the way the surplus is being used. My God man... how in the hell do you think W. wants to pay for this ridiculous war, have tax breaks for the rich, and shirk the responsibility??? By dipping his grubby hands into the fucking Scial Security System. In his budget proposal, he expects to pay for it by taking money out of the fucking surplus and more while trying to pass this hokey-ass plan that if as positive as the Reps would have us believe, there would be no need for, because the rosy economy would mean that Social Security would be taking in more than projected. In other words, lets paint a rosy future of the economy for private accounts but a bleak one for staying the course. I fucking watched the damn Secratary of the Treasury on CSPAN answer questions from some committee and he admitted that the way W. planned on accounting for his budget was by dipping his hands into the surplus. "But of course, we'll pay it back"

George Bush has spent money like a drunken sailor during his administration. He panders to the right on social issues and the left on fiscal issues, when I think the opposite will probably help the country more.

 

Clearly, the American people do not pay into Social Security system for this purpose. How about passing initiatives that prevent the American govt. (Dems and Reps alike) from fucking with money that should not be touched? I teach Social Security. I know the ins, outs, ups, downs. The crisis is for that people aren't willing to admit that some social programs are necessities (and cost money) and is the price we pay for living in a cvilized society. Would the same right-to-life groups be rallying for support for feeding the numerous many that would be starving and left behind after this supplement is taken away?

Most Americans pay into the social security system becasause they have no choice in the matter. If they didn't they would go to prison.

 

How about smoking in restaurants?

I am a smoker. I live in Texas. I can't smoke in any fucking restaurants save for one Luby's with a smoking section. What does this have to do with anything? The fact that big tobacco is a lobbyist for the Republican party and pumps millions of duckets into the GOP? That liberals passed the initiative to ban smoking in public places? This brings up another question... do you believe second-hand smoke has negative affecs on the non-smoker besides making their clothes smell? If you believe second-hand smoke is health threatening then public health has priority to the smoker's right to light up. Even I can accept this.

I am a smoker as well and cannot smoke in any restaurant in the state of MA or any public building for that matter or any private building that is big enough that the government deems it public (a privately owned office building is not allowed to permit smoking). Lexington (of American Revolution fame) was amongst the first to institute such a ban. They were going to put it up for a vote,but the Board of Health, fearing a loss just banned it. No vote, no democracy, no freedom. So, in Lexington, after the ban was in place a company noticed that many of their smoking employees were outside getting rained on or freezing so they built them a small plexi-glass structure (like some bus stops look). The town swept in and deemed that structure, built specifically for smokers a public building and as such banned smoking in it. This is a left wing agenda and they don't give a shit about demoncracy, freedom, or rights, they just want what they want and that's that.

 

The effects of second hand smoke that one would inhale while out to eat, especially if they are in an area where smoking is not permitted is tiny. Now, if I were to sit in a small enclosed room and blow smokein your face that would be different. But a restaurant the size of Outback Steakhouse people would have no trouble. And, if one does not wish to inhale second hand smoke tha they are free to exercise their right to not go to that restaurant. If enough people really cared about the issue then restaurants with smoking sections would have gone out of business years ago. This is not about public health, this is about (mostly) liberals frowning upon smoking and trying to control other people's lives.

 

Death penalty?

How is the death penalty a choice? The convicted get to choose if they live or die? Are you talking at the state level? At the federal level? Elaborate.

I'm talking about a state's right to choose whether or not to execute criminals.

 

On a sidenote, I support a death penalty, I just don't agree with the way it is implemented. I live in a state that has more executions than any other in the Union. Many are probably justified. If the death penalty wasn't subjective in who gets the axe, I would have no problems with it at all. Sadly, statistics show that minorites are more likely to receive the death penalty than whites. There needs to be a more concrete and color-blind implementation. Severity of crime, intention, repeat offender, etc.  If a black man kills three kids and  a white woman kills three kids, they both should be axed. Sadly, our system isn't set up to be so objective.

I agree that the system is sexist but the plain and simple fact is that minorities (African Americans in particular) commit far more murders than do white people so it would follow that they would be executed more often.

 

Fox News? (the station you have a parental lock on),

We clearly have a choice on this. We can watch or not watch. This doesn't even make sense.

 

Sidenote: My daughter is one years old (as of yesterday!) so the parental lock thing is for my convenience as I exercise my right to choose.

I didn't know how old your daughter was and figured the parental lock was to keep her from watching it. Many groups have tried to run them off the air and the Right is perhaps more guilty of this type of bullshit.

 

Taxation?

You'll have to elaborate here.

What choice do I have as far as the level at which I am taxed?

 

I'm actually very socially liberal and much more of a libertrian than Republican.

Do you support the legalization of drugs?

Yes

 

The absence of govt. funding for schools, roads, etc.?

No

 

Do you just want the govt. to stay out of our private lives and stop pushing radical theological agendas?

Yes, although I have yet to see a "Radical theological agenda" being pushed.

 

Just want to have a better understanding of how libertarian you really are.

OK

 

This is the type of reaction that makes you lose credibility. The overturning of a (unwarranted, if you've read the Constitution) court decision will not end the world or cause a massive social crisis.

Um.. I teach the Constitution. History clearly shows that court cases usually show effects over a period of time. Some are immediate but take generations to act on (Plessy v. Ferguson). Overturning a law can have huge consequences, positive (Brown v. Board) or negative.

Ok, then point to the section of the Constitution that says that Abortion should be or should not be legal? The Supreme Court couldn't do that so they made a bunch of shit up and came up with the "penumbra (sp?) of rights". Read the document and then read the case. They have nearly no similarities.

 

Will abortion laws be more restrictive is some places? Yes. Should they be? Probably.

Right... if they are restrictive now, how would they be if the right to choose isn't protected.

Since when are abortion laws restrictive now? Because a woman can't take her pregnancy to full term and then murder a baby? Because a 16 year old can't get an abortion in some states without parental consent?

 

Will some states ban abortion? Possibly, but doubtful.

Once again, I listed large parts of the country that would probably be privy to such bannings. If banned, abortion issues will be huge in those states.

Some states may ban abortion. Others will not, getting in a car and driving or on a plane, train, or bus is not that big a deal, unless Texas bans it and you live in Dallas.

 

It's not that they are full of any more shit than any other blowhard, I've just heard everything they have to say and I'm no longer interested in the constant reptition.

Right, like Dan Rather who conservatives love to use as their whipping post.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this but yes Dan Rather is just as left as Rush is right. Rush is atleast honest about his bias.

 

By whom has this "myth" been dissected and dissolved? The liberal media? Why is it that many conservatives have no problem admitting that Fox tilts right but almost no liberals wil admit to the left biason the other networks? Are you guys that oblivious to it or just in denial?

Dissected and dissolved by obvious liberals who decided to investigate the truth about the presentation of the term "liberal media" into the national conscience. Say something long enough and it becomes true.

Who? Al Franken?

 

You claim Fox tilts right, while still referring to them as a news organization, instead of a propaganda machine. What issues are the other outlets supporting a leftist agenda?

I never claimed that CNN or any of the other stations didn't broadast news. They all do, but they all put their spin on it. It is what it is.

 

Social Security? Not a whisper.

Are you really trying to tell me that not a single person in opposition to the plan has been on? I have seen several on Fox News.

 

The war In Iraq? As all of them refer to the soldiers fighting for our freedom.

Well.... They are Americans.

 

The records of Bush's nominees to Atty General, Sec. of Education, etc.?

Bush gets attacked all the time and so do his cabinet members. Ashcroft was absolutely vilified by the media as a whole.

 

The travesty of private school vouchers instituted by the govt. or the piss-poor excuse for an education policy known as NCLB? *crickets*

What travesty? Vouchers sound like a pretty good idea to me. I don't know what NCLB is.

 

The deregulation of big business? Fuck no, the media IS big business.

They are hypocrites.

 

There is no denial. It doesn't exist. The "liberal" media is as corporate as corporate gets. The op-eds in the outdated print media mean dick. Of course the New York Times and Boston Globe are liberal. It panders to its audience... decidedly liberal cities. The same way the Houston Chronicle is conservative.

Ted Turner is as corporate as corporate can get. George Soros is as well. And yet they are both liberals. I know that the Globe panders to it's audience but they also lie and say that they are not liberal. I've never read the Houston Paper, so I can't comment on it.

 

What organizations are the networks getting their quotes from these days? Mayo? Manhattan Institute? Heritage Foundation? Oops. How dare that liberal media get talking points from Rep. Think Tanks with conservative agendas and skewed data.

NOW, NAACP, Rainbow PUSH, Sharpton's goup, etc...

 

I mean, really,the left bias has stopped meaning the pushing of an agenda for progressive reform and now means not towing the govt. line with the Bush administration. Anything not deemed Bush-favorable is a liberal bias? Give me a fucking break. Clinton was crucified by all of the networks when he was President... but damn that liberal media.

It's not really about openly pushing the liberal platform as it about skewing the news and the verbiage towards that platform. It is very hard to be objective, especially if oyu have deeply seeded political beliefs and many people have a massive abiltity to delude themselves. I'd be willing to be that O]Reily beleives that he is an independant, that Rather believes that he calls it right down teh middle, and so on. They don't. Brit Hume and Russert are pretty good about being nuetral in news broadcasts and interviews, the rest are shit.

 

 

Who is the conservative founder of CNN? Ted Turner?

What role does Turner play in CNN now?

None. The current pres. of CNN is a left winger, though.

 

CNN, MSNBC, CBS, et al are news channels and have editorial control over the news they broadcast and anchors adn reporters are hired by those channels, not the parent companies. Those channels are run by liberals who hire liberals who then report the news through their liberal perspective. Most of the time they probably don't even realize that they are doing it.

Hold on there slick. Almost all of the research done by Rep. Think Tanks was based on polls CONDUCTED IN THE 70's of actual anchors. On social issues, they leaned liberal but in fiscal matters they leaned right, because lets face it, rich liberal journalists don't like paying taxes either. I haven't found any polls or research data that has given any indication of the political affiliation of the administration of Media Networks. i mean fuck, for every Dan Rather liberal blabber, I could give a Rather quote that could be construed as conservative. I mean, really, the big difference in groups like CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC etc. vs. Fox is that they actually give BOTH sides. They have their conservative pundits sitting net to the liberal quacks. And that is really in talking points conversations only. Watch the liberal media and the quotes and sources for most of their stories. They ain't coming from liberal watchdog groups.

I don't recall citing any study, slick. I know that rich liberals don't liek to pay taxes, they do like it when others do. Hilaray Clinton and John Kerry, two people who wish to raise taxes don't pat any more than they have to and infact go out of their way to pay the absolute minimum. It is hypocracy.

 

Fox has plenty of liberal quacks on their station. Sharpton is on O'Reilly all the time. They have Hannity and Colmes (and Colmes generally comes of better when he is allowed to speak). I never denied the Fox right bias, I was disgusted with that fat blond woman on Fox (I can't think of her name, but she's on the station a lot during the day and weekend) who was practically orgasimic when the GOP swept the mid-term elections in 02. But if you'd like to compare the stations prime time personalities we can. Fox has O'Reilly, Hannity and Colmes, and Greta Van Susteran (two conservatives and two liberals), MSNBC has Oberman, Matthews, and Scarborough (2 liberals and one conservative), CNN has Paula Zahn, Larry King and Anderson Cooper (3 liberals). If anything Fox is more balance than the other two. I don't need to get started on the networks and their shows like 60 Minutes.

 

You also seem to think that I agree with this my side/ your side type of journalism. I don't. I think it is complete horseshit all around the board. I don't trust big media because ultimately big media is owned by big business. and if nothing else, I am consistent.

I think it is horseshit as well. But it is what it is. They all have their bias and one is free to chose what they want to or don't want to watch. I have trouble with people who wish to abolish Fox Nes because it doesn't present the news the way they want and have nothing to say about the rest who do.

 

I haven't watched CNN in a long time. Maybe they've started to pander to the right.

Of course they have been pandering to the right. All of the liberal networks you have mentioned have been.

Fox News proved that that is where the audience is. Liberals watch ABC, CBS, and NBC for their news. Convservatives go to cable. Why do you think that Fox is killing the other two in the ratings? MSNBC tried to go the other way and become an openly liberal station with Donahue following Mathews and it failed miserably, so they went the other way with Savage and Scarborough. Savage offended their liberal sensibilties and was fired (I have no use for him, but they should have known what they were getting when they hired him, same for ESPN with Rush). CNN seems to be the only one who keeps running namby pamby liberal after liberal out there.

 

Please do. This is pretty much the only part of this case that I find interesting any more.

Agreed. I was really split until I heard there was no financial gain for the husband from his wife's death. And then to be married for 15 years while she stayed in that state. I have sympathy for that guy. Fuck, I have sympathy for the family too but I still think NOONE here should have even known who Terry Shiavo was.

I was never really split on it and frankly I'm very sick of hearing about it.

And Round Two Begins

 

The Battle for the Corpse

 

You would think she would have had some sort of will and this whole mess could be avoided. I know that most people don't think to have living wills, but I'd figure they'd have the ones for when they die.

A life without the ability to actually live is not worth keeping alive. I doubt any person would really want to exist as a mute cripple in a vegetative state unable to even swallow or breathe for themselves, no matter what their family thought should be done. If any member of my family became so physically disabled that their brain was essentially slush, I would rather let them die with some dignity rather than exist as a withered comatose shell.

And Round Two Begins

 

The Battle for the Corpse

 

You would think she would have had some sort of will and this whole mess could be avoided.  I know that most people don't think to have living wills, but I'd figure they'd have the ones for when they die.

Ugh. Without taking sides in this debate, do Terri's parents have ANY legal rights over her custody. The courts have ruled against them time and time again.

Reports are coming out now that Bush didn't want to fly back to DC to sign the special law Congress passed last weekend. Looks like they're trying to get as far away from this as possible since all the polls show that 80% of folks didn't agree with the government getting involved.

 

I'm still waiting for someone in the OMG LIBERAL MEDIA to point out that as governor of Texas, Bush signed a law allowing life support to be pulled if the patient couldn't pay for it regardless of the family's wishes.

 

I guess you could say he was against the Culture of Life before was for it.

 

Good thing we didn't elect the flip-flopper, eh?