Terri Schiavo
This is not a battle to end the life of someone
in a non-responsive coma at the end of their
life.
In order for Terri Schiavo's feeding tube to be removed- three conditions must be met. The first is that her wishes regarding life support need to be determined by documentation. The second is that it needs to be determined if she is in a permanent vegetative state. Lastly- the guardian must not have a conflict of interest in the matter. There is dispute over her wishes regarding whether she would want to be placed on life support and there is no documentation. Her present state is in dispute by many doctors and her husband has a conflict of interest due to the fact that he has another family.
*Please note that 80% or more conservatives don't believe Terri Schiavo should be starved to death and 80% or more liberals believe she should be. This is a conservative versus liberal issue.
*As a society it is our duty to protect the weak, elderly and physically and mentally challenged.
*When it came to the lawsuit and settlement money for rehabilitation- Michael Schiavo never mentioned Terri Schiavo's death wish.
*If Terri Schiavo received therapy to the muscles in her jaw - she would be able to speak in a clearer manner.
*If Terri Schiavo received therapy to the muscles in her jaw - she might not need a feeding tube. A feeding tube is not life support.
*Terri Schiavo is being housed in a Hospice- a place where people go to die that offers no rehabilitation. Michael Schiavo's intentions are perfectly clear.
*According to the husband - Terri Schiavo made a statement about not being put on life support after seeing a relative on life support at the end of their life. Terri is not at the end of her life.
*A legal guardian should have no conflict of interest in matters of life and death. Michael Schiavo has a common law wife and two children with that wife. That constitutes a conflict of interest. It would be the same if he was the beneficiary of a 200,000 life insurance policy.
*You cannot convict and execute a murderer based solely on hearsay- but Terri Schiavo is being allowed to starve to death based on hearsay.
*It has been determined that it is cruel and unusual punishment to execute mentally challenged murderers- however- a brain damaged woman is being starved to death.
*If you starved a dog to death - you would go to jail. However - Terri Schiavo is being allowed to starve to death by court order.
*I hope that I am never held accountable today for the statements that I made 15 years ago when I was 20 years old. Would you want to be?
*How many 24 year olds have heart attacks naturally? How many husbands abuse or murder their wives? The percentages are greater that foul play led to Terri Schiavo's condition.
*If you attempted to execute a murderer based on hearsay- liberals would be outraged - but they have no problem starving an innocent person to death based on hearsay.
*Liberals say that we should err on the side of life when it comes to the dearth penalty for convicted murderers. Terri Schiavo was never a criminal and liberals want to err on the side of her death.
*Liberals defend the starvation of Terri Schiavo, because they say she has no quality of life. Does this mean that we should starve every mentally and physically challenged person in America.
*Liberals always compare conservatives to Nazi's. However, it is liberals that want to starve Terri Schiavo to death because she has no quality of life. Please note that in Nazi Germany- they murdered the weak and those with no quality of life.
*Liberals fight to save the lives of convicted murderers- but fight for the starvation to death of Terri Schiavo?
*Liberals make a big deal about hunger in the US. That is the hunger of able bodied people that can work for a living- however- they support the starvation of Terri Schiavo who is not able bodied.
*Liberals protested the treatment and humiliation of prisoners at Abu Ghraib (individuals at war with America) and then they defend the starvation of an innocent American!
© 2005 http://www.boycottliberalism.com