Controversial life decision

Personally, I am very torn on this specific case.

As a general rule, I am 100 percent pro-life.

That does not mean that I believe that it is acceptable to keep someone alive by mechanical means.

In the case of Terri Schiavo, I am torn.
Her body physically functions properly.
The only intervention is the feeding tube that is more convenient for a care-giver to use than other options.

The BIG problem, is that medical science cannot accurately determine if there is a reasonable chance that she may recover.

This issue became more problematic when I heard a woman who had been in a 'vegetative' state discuss how she was able to remember all that went on around her while she was in the 'vegetative' state.
Her problem was that she was unable to get her body to communicate to those around her that she was there alive and thinking!

Like I say, I am torn.
I would not want to go through what Terri Schiavo is going through.
Neither would I want my life ended simply because I was not able to interact with the world around me.

In the final balance, I feel that the life ending option for Terri Schiavo is NOT an acceptable option. Death by forced starvation is not the correct way to end this situation.

Chas

I had an employee who had Cerebral Palsy. I asked her one time what was the hardest thing dealing with her condition. She said it was sooo frustrating because her mind worked fine (she had a degree in her field) but her body just wouldn't do what she wanted it to. The same lady was faced with ending her father's life support, a very crutial decision, we discussed. She decided to end life support, he lived for another week then died in the night on his own. Someone of a much higher authority spared her thinking his passing was of the actions of her decision I am convinced. Have you ever had weakness in your muscles and couldn't lift something? What if it were the means to communicate(Control to communicate?) No, I would not want to end it all for that reason. Now If on the other hand, all major organs were shutting down on their own like my dad, lungs, heart, blood pressure, kidneys, stroke all at once, I guess pull the plug because someone else in a higher authority is making the decision other than the doctor..........I agreed because I knew my dad throughout my life and the doctors helped him go peacefully. I am glad I was there. Did he have a living will, no. My mother did and she said "feed me, medicate me give me fluids but don't let machines only keep my body alive. Her body started shut down of major organs and 96 hous later died at 63. I was there also, all 96 hours with my husband. She was not coherent, couldn't speak and I followed her instructions to the letter because they were her wishes to the point she put them in writing and discussed them over a three year period before she even got ill, she could have changed her words at any time, even up till the time she quite responding.

One of the seeming conradictions of scientific development is the enormously disproportionate amount of money spent on ways of killing healthy people (as in war) compared with what is spent on finding ways to cure and or alleviate sickness.

I have never had to face the "pulling the plug" decision in relation to a human, but in many instances I have made the decision to put a pet animal, obviously incurable, out of its misery. How well I remember the last such instance when my dog could not eat, drink, or move in any way, but just lay whimpering. I placed the dog on a mat, under the side of the house, with an electric light bulb so that it would not feel abandonded. After a week or so, I could not see the sense in prolonging the animal's irreversible suffering and had it put down. I suppose the creature, had it been human, may have been placed on life support systems at a hospital, but for how long and for what purpose?

I see it as a double standard that it is taken for granted to put an animal out of its misery as quickly as possible, while at the same time extracting the last ounce of suffering from a presumably incurable human.

If a desire for euthanasia has been expressed verbally or in writing, let it be carried out, at the point when the person can no longer indicate their wish.

If no such desire has been expressed, then let common sense prevail. To avoid premature termination of life which may be desired by potential beneficiaries, let a team of doctors with no previous personal involvement in the case make the decision.

To me there is an obvious contradiction between extending as long as possible an unconscious life which has no doubt been filled with experiences, while unhesitatingly sending off to war young people who have not experienced even the fundamental fruits of a normal human life.

A few years ago when I was in North Queensland I had the job of attending the local jail to do some repair work, there I meet a man who would never be released from jail because he was unrepentant for murdering his wife.

At first I though he was getting what he disserved but when I heard the full story form one of the jail personal I was less than impressed as was the jail officer. This man had turned off the life support machinery that was keeping his wife alive after a severe motor vehicle collision where she had sustained serious injuries and had actually been dead for more than 15 minutes before bring revived by attending Ambulance staff. They only took this long because they needed to extract her from the wreck.

By this time he had served 25 years in jail and every time he was put up for parole he was asked the same question was he repentant for his actions to which he always replied no and I would do the same thing again if the situation ever arose. Needless to say he never received parole but at the very same time there was a contract killer in the same jail for murdering two people it seems that he got parole for the first murder by telling them what they wanted to hear and within a week of getting out he had murdered someone else for money.

This person who held true to his beliefs is probably still in jail but he certainly is no threat to the community in any way whatsoever but a contract killer can get parole and murder again in a vicious and painful manner.

Now maybe it?s just me but I see some serious problems in our legal system when things like this can happen.

But on the other hand this person had been in jail so long that he didn?t want out and was prepared to live there for the rest of his life as it offered a structure that he could cope with.

Unfortunately this isn?t the first time that I have seen this either as I ran into a Doctor of Medicine who was on remand for stealing a car and had then spent 12 months in jail because while he was away at a conference his wife had the locks changed on the house and when he arrived home was told to get the hell out. He just jumped into his car and drove off and his wife reported the car as stolen so when he was caught several miles down the road he was arrested and refused bail because of the value of the car and waited in jail for I don?t know how long for a trial but when I meet him he had already spent 12 months inside for driving a car registered in his name and didn?t want out either so he did everything possible to stay inside.

I think this is more a condition of our jail system than any form of justice.

1. Governor Bush did not break the law; he worked within a law the legislature had just passed.
2. Mr Schiavo did not remember his wife's wishes until after he'd found a fancy-woman.
3. A former colleague of mine put his gaga wife in a nursing home then divorced her and "married" another, singificantly younger, woman. Would Florida law not allow Mr Schiavo to do likewise? Or does he merely not wish to seem contemptible, as my colleague did?
4. Food and water are not extraordinary means of life sustention. We are not talking about iron lungs or germ-free bubbles here.
5. If you do not want to feed your dog in your yard, it does you no harm that I feed and otherwise care for him in my yard. If Mr Schiavo does not want to feed his wife, it does him no harm that her parents do so.
6. I once had a sick rabbit put to death rather than have the pain of seeing his pain. But it would be irrational - although singularly common - to claim that I had done the rabbit a favor. I killed him to spare myself, not him, pain. And I could have been prosecuted had I starved him to death.
7. Your description of Mrs Schiavo's reactions does not coincide with that of her family: they say she follows things with her eyes and so forth.
8. If God the Hunter strikes you down, shout defiance as you fall.
9. During the early 1990s a man in Ohio or some such place, having been in a coma for 13 years or so, had his regular dental checkup, as a result of which the dentist decided to do a filling. Injection of the anaesthetic woke the patient up.

It isn't for me to say whether the plugs should of been pulled or not. That is up to her Family (husband), not for the general public to deal with.

The Florida legislator should of stayed out of it - If she were my wife, and the courts said OK to unplug then the legislator made a law saying No. Then I would send all the bills to the state of Florida - they took responsibility at that point in time.

It isn't up to anyone but her husband to make that choice - not the public - not the state - no ones.

If you are asking me what I would want if I became a Plant (veggie) where my life was someone fed, watered, changed and put me in the sun on a daily basis. I say pull the plug and let me go to my maker - that is not life, I want quality not quantity, let me go and meet my God - and my family get on with their life. But that would be for me - The choice for her - is up to her husband - not the state of Florida.

I've almost been there, not really the same situation but my mother has had to decide whether to keep me on life support or not.

I was in a car accident hat left me in a coma for almost 50 days. The hospital had assured my mother that I would PROBABLY come to but they wer unsure if I would have any motor skills or be able to lead a normal live without constant medical attention. In this case, my mother OF COURSE, signed to keep me on lief support.

I did recover, learned to walk, talk, read and write again and now live a life with no change other than frequent headaches which have slowed down a bit but still often plague me.

As far as the woman you are speaking of, I haven't seen nor heard of th eincident other than in your description. Judging by what you've said, this person has absolutely no way of ever leading a normal life or being able to enjoy life again. There is no medical evidence showing that she may recover nor any medical breakthroughs that would change the situation, therefore it is not inhuman to stop life supoprt and help this lady to pass in peace and with comfort assisted by whatever medication is deemed appropriate to hold off any pain until her demise.

as for the legality surrounding this, it is VEY hard to say what is wrong or right without hearing the full testimony of the parties involved or that of her doctors. I agree that the spouse is now a part of the persons life and should have say as to what happens, but lets look at this another way shall we?
Scenario:
My wife and I have not been getting along for three years, we aer deciding to divorce after the kids are grown but feel they need both parents to develop properly. We have been civil so that our relationship doesn't affect the children but we are not communicating or in love with each other anymore.

my wife has a car accuident while driving home and is deemed clinically brain dead at the hospital. Her parents want to kep her alive but she has a nice life insurance policy that pays me in the event of her sudden death. i would never have intentionally harmed her, but this would clear up all my problems for good.

Should I still be allowed to make the descision without her parents or family members having any say in the matter?

function on a lower brain level, smile, coo, eyes move with people I want to let my body go. I do not think that this is the last stop in learning and helping others. If I can not function as a person I want the person who I give permission to, to let the doctors let me die! I will return as a better person.

As far as I can see, there is no problem with resources in the Schiavo case. A lack of resources can lead to all kinds of bad things: if I give $100 to Birthright I cannot give that $100 to the Coalition on Homelesssness. I can well imagine a situation where it would become impossible to feed Mrs Schiavo without starving one of her children. But that is not the problem. I think we have to distinguish between the obligation to sustain a particular person and the right to do so. If there were no insurance or publicly funded health care the case would be simple: if Mr Schiavo is somehow quit of his obligation to keep his wife fed, and chooses not to keep her fed, it should be open to her family, or indeed to anyone, if they so choose and if they have the resources (i.e. money), to keep her fed.

It's your responsibility when deciding to marry someone whether they are the person you believe them to be. Too many people buy into the afraid to be alone or parental pressure for grand kids. If you took the proper time to know the person you could get a feel of when the chips are down what might happen. Yes I definitely believe that people's taste change or time, or even boredom in the relationship, but not so much as the core of the individual. To me that part of you never changes a duck is a duck, a shark is a shark, neither could be the other, they might try to act like the other but eventually they have to be themselves.Do adults act like jilted teenagers when the marriage is over? Unfortunately yes, and that's rather sad which scares me away from marriage. You made the mess, you're responsible to cleanup your own mess, nobody twisted your arm to get married and if they did you're still responsible for going thru it or listening to someone else rather than yourself.

One. You appear to be postured for her termination and to be seeking confirmation for your position. Disheartening.

Two. I am somewhat concerned about your comments. '...he broke the law stalling the already long awaited release of WASTED life.', 'Our Gov. Jeb Bush abused his powers and overturned the court's ruling stopping the death sentence ...'

Last time, I checked there was a system of checks and balances. The court only acted on existing law giving the go ahead to begin the termination. The State Legislature rewrote the law that Gov Bush used to stop her termination. So it was not him alone in making this decision. Governor Bush is only the 'Executor' of the law. His actions were fully within his powers.

Three. Our entire structure of Government is organized based on the Judeo/Christian Bible. The function of Government is to maintain good order of the people. Our decision must always be for life first. Thou shalt not kill. Exo 20:13. Death is to be determined by God alone. It is wrong for man to condemn another man. Matt 7:1.

Fourth. You have some serious issues you need professional help with. When I hear things like "WASTED life" and "only way to do this was to remove her feeding tube and starve to death". It seems to me, whether right ot wrong, we are able to kill people more quickly with injection, gas, electric shock, and firing squads. Why don't we just choose one of those methods if death is the goal?

My position is that God is using her for his purpose and God will take her on his account when he is done. Terri's condition is not about her but about everyone else. It is about our compassion and humility. You are being tested to find out who you are. Who her husband is. I really question any man's motives who desires to take her life.

On a side note, in 1987 my family was confronted with a similiar situation when my brother was involved in an auto accident. He was declared brain dead 4 days later. It tore us apart. Machines were keeping him alive and he would have phycially healed but his brain was gone. In that state the Government stepped in. My was brother was removed from the equipment and he died almost instantly. In Terri's case the right decisions mostly likely fell short at the right time which resulted in this situation. Now I am not advocating to terminate Terri today. I am stating that the law needs to be reviewed relating to these cases.

Terri should be kept alive.

Terri is different in that she won't die immediately from being taken off of the feeding tube. But her minimal brain activity doesn't lead for much of a life, so I don't consider this "clear" in that she should be sustained in the manner she is.

And yes, the law should be reviewed. Including the law rather hastily passed specifically for Terri. There was a lot longer than the 5 days it took them to suddenly figure out that this is an important issue. Rushing through legislation is questionable, at the least.

At the time, Terri's husband had the right to decide if her life should be prolonged in the manner is was. If you believe that allowing someone to die is killing them, then people must always be kept alive at all costs. Drawing a line seems like you make decisions for god, and thus leads to a hypocracy.

Can you tell ME where God said it was wrong to kill in war? John Howard and George Bush attended a church service together, after making a commitment to invade Iraq and obviously kill many people.

How many times in war have both sides prayed to the same God for victory?

Should you kill in defence of yourself and your kinfolk?

And even with a magnifying glass I cannot find any reference in Exodus 20:13 to life support systems or mercy killings.

However some translations of the Bible (including the Literal Bible with Strong's definitions) use the term "murder" in place of "kill." This of course narrows down the meaning enormously, confining the act of killing to wilfully taking the life of another person.

So perhaps you should also "sit down with the Bible" with some good reference material and see if you can come up with something intelligible to say.

Like I said you are entitled to your opinions, I just differ. He chose not to be there for his daughter due to bad press issues not because she needed tough love. Family comes first especially when it's your own children. The day you choose your job before the needs of your family you prove that you are not a good parent. He wasnt in trouble to lose his job by attending, he merly made his choice for selfish reasons. Yes she is responsible for her own actions and she faced the music without the support of her own father, sorry I have little respect for a man that abandons their child when in need.
The federal court made the decision to euthenize Terri, that she was beyond any recouperative therapy. It's sad and horrible, but so is 13 years of not knowing life. Jeb blocked a federal court ruling with a bs by law that he wasnt given ample enough time to review her situation. He grand standed on this issue for press. He could have gotten involved at any time but chose only now.
I chose my examples to show that federal jurisdiction tends to overrule state jurisdiction. He wont be able to overturn the ruling, only delay giving him alot of press. This press is steering away from his lack to provide a good educational system in Florida. Our schools have come under fire with poor cleanliness, FCAT scores, and a slew of substandard conditions while maintaining that he is the "educational governor", his self proclaimed title, not mine.
As for God quotes, I grew up going to private school half my life. I'm fully aware of it's teachings and take them as the book of common sense to live a virtuous life. The Bible isnt the be all of human existence. It is their to assist as a reminder of proper behavior not to be completely literal. It is an immpressive book but it was written by man, not by God, therefore fallable. My opinion of God is that he is perfect devoid of an ego. He doesnt need us to validate his existence. I see nothing wrong with others showing their praise for God, I just dont like it when people use God to validate their points or push their beliefs on others. Religion was created by man not God. It is based on faith, that's how it works. I dont care what religion you or anyone believes in, I just believe that there has to be a God to make the enormous balance in life in the world we live in. What is his/her/it's name is a pointless arguement that many people engage in. People use religion to suit their needs and always quoting God but sure treat others in a horrible way. Just ask anyone working in retail how the pious customers treat them with respect demanding their job when dissatisfied. Do onto others always seem to be thrown out the window when money is concerned. Also just about more than half of all wars were declared cause God said so to vanquish the enemy, God and blood seem to go hand in hand. Isnt it written that "vengence is mine said the lamb"? God gave us free will, not slavery, we make our own decisions and are responsible for our own actions. By your account that Gods miracles work through us states that we are not responsible for our own actions therefore we are free to do wrong cause it's Gods fault not ours? Do you believe when a crimminal claims the Devil made me do it? No it was a clear choice to do wrong. Also so God is just using his "chosen priests whom he directly speaks to" to molest small children for his pleasure?

While I agree with MrMiami's points, he is in error. Exodus 20:13 states "...shall not murder...". Killing and murder are two intirely seperate issues by means of motive. Killing is the termination of life by accident (man-slaughter), punishment (justice), or other like motives. Murder is the termination of life for selfish ambition, personal gain, anger, or any other self-centered focus.

If someone is accidentally killed in a car wreck, that is killing. If someone purposely runs over an individual, that is murder.

The Bible supports capital punishment. This is killing, or rather, being put to death as a result of ones wrong choices.

In Teri's case, the death sentence was murder. This was for the husband's selfish gains, release of responsibility, whatever.

I am seeing an incredible lack of understanding of how Government, Nations, and God operates in your postings. It is very clear that you have not studied AT ALL and that you are pulling this stuff out of thin air because it sounds good to you.

I'll respond later to your questions and viewpoints. In the meantime, think about this. The Bible establishes the foundations for Government in the Old Testament. The purpose of Government is to maintain good order. The New Testament establishes interpersonal relations and how people are to relate to each other aside from the main point that people are saved through grace.

I know you will toss around Matt 7:1 and John 7:8 without even understanding those versus also. When I do respond lets try something. Be prepared to speak intellectually and not emotionally.

Let us take from several translations:

NIV: exo 20:13 You shall not murder.
KJV: exo 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
RSV: exo 20:13 You shall not kill.

Using the same verse, Exodus 20:13, and translating it into modern expressions of rights then the statement does not seek to secure one's own rights but rather protect the rights of others then the verse would read:

'My neighbor has a right to life.'

Christ in NIV Mt 5:21-26 does define Exodus 20:13 to be murder. Yet the KJV calls it 'kill'. Further research indicates that there are Hebrew and Greek verb translations that mean to 'kill'. But doctrinal evidence then tells us that the term used actually means 'murder'.

At any rate, the bottom line is the humans should always make the choice for life in societal matters. Terri Schiavo must remain alive and we must make the effort to help her.

Capital punishment is not to be administered by individuals but the Government under specific guidelines. This is a distinguishable difference between a Government and the people.

In the case of Terri Schiavo her case has not met the Biblical litmus test for the State to execute her. Once again the State legislature and Govenor acted appropriately under the system of checks and balances where the court had failed.

The choice is for life.

Israel is a people which does not count itself among the nations. And the OT centers on Israel.

but needst not strive
Officiously to keep alive.
I know that that couplet is part of an extended joke, but I also think we need to distinguish as it does. In the case of Mr Miami's brother life was being maintained by extraordinary means; Mrs Schiavo only needs feeding to stay alive, although I hope she is getting regular dental check-ups and so forth; some people in this discussion seem to think a whiff of cyanide appropriate. The last is certainly against the Biblical command; switching off the life support for Mr Miami's brother surely was in conformity with the Biblical command; where does ceasing to feed someone lie? When do we have the obligation, under the Biblical command, to feed someone?

While I know absolutely nothing about this case in question other than what I've read here and I'll admit to being more than a bit confussed by some of that have been posted.

Someone has to be paying for this and more importantly if she is "Brain Dead" as has been suggested by the Doctors there must be other life support equipment involved if only to keep her breathing.

But what concerns me more here is the fact that medical equipment is being tied up on someone who does not have a good chance of recovery and this same equipment could be used for someone else who may stand a chance of recovery if they could have the use of it. Otherwise it's all a bit "Airy Fairy" for my liking.

I wonder what condition the rest of her organs are in. I hope that, when ever it is she passes, her good parts are passed along to others who could benefit from those...

So, would 'not kill' further apply to all life? Can 'not murder' be applied to non-human life?

I'll defer to your quick mental lookup for supporting references in the Bible that reflect on this or clarify it somewhat.

However I've got the impression that there are other forces at work here and what is best is no longer a question that is being looked at.

I see this as very hypocritical in supporting State Sponsored death. The only difference between a person murdering someone and the State murdering someone is that when the State does it you all take responsibility and guilt for that death and not an individual.

So MrMiami how does it feel knowing that you have a certain amount of responsibility for the deaths of British Soldiers by US bombs dropped from US aircraft?

But I suppose you will have to answer to your maker for your part in any deaths that come about from your support of State sponsored actions.

What are you expecting another hijacked commercial aircraft full of innocent passengers to come crashing in on this guy?

It is when religious fever is taken to the extreme that things like that happen!

You do not mention if they did a full brain scan and what the results were, I have heard of people who appeared to be vegetables but a full brain scan has shown brain activity, thus life. If the scan is flat then she is already dead and all they have is a pile of parts.

Other issues here are the husband's rights in regards to the parents' and the govt. I think that by intervening the way he has the governor has now taken over full responsibility for the medical costs that occurred from the moment of intervention.

If a person has conveyed to others the wish not to live life at a marginal level then those wishes should be carried out as painlessly as possible. If their is doubt then the one/s closest to them need to make the decision for them.

The parents should only intervene if their is real reason to doubt that the husband had her best interest's at heart. And upon intervention they MUST take on responsibility for the costs incurred from that point on.

I have been through a situation similar to this with my father, hw had a growth around his heart and lungs that had stopped them from working without mechanical intervention, to remove the growth they would have had to remove both lungs and his heart, and at 81 the doctors felt he would not survive the trauma of the surgery. he was concious at times but unable to speak and often not rational. My siblings thought it best to let him go, I wrestled with the question for a long time and eventually agreed with them, I was not happy about it. But life as a permanent hospital bed attachment would have been an athema to a man who had been very active until a few weeks early when the problem caused his heart to stop. If the govt had intervened I would probably have gone to parliament house and abused the hell out of them for esxcessive interference in a non govt matter.

Here is a link to our local paper that wrote a continuing story.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-asecschiavo20112003nov20,1,234663.story?coll=orl-news-headlines
Governor requests Schiavo judge out

He took a page from Alice in Wonderland to say the jurist must be pulled off the case.

By Sean Mussenden | Sentinel Staff Writer
Posted November 20, 2003

Gov. Jeb Bush demanded Wednesday that the judge handling the constitutional challenge of "Terri's Law" remove himself from the case, comparing him to the Queen of Hearts in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.

In legal papers, the governor also asked that a jury reconsider whether Terri Schiavo would have wanted to be kept alive artificially in what doctors have described as a persistent vegetative state.

Terri Schiavo went for six days without food and water last month after her husband, Michael Schiavo, won a court order to remove the feeding tube that has kept her alive for 13 years. Florida lawmakers and Bush intervened, enacting in two days a law that allowed the governor to order that the feeding tube be reinserted.

In their filings Wednesday, Bush's attorneys accused Pinellas County Circuit Judge W. Douglas Baird of a "biased" approach to the case.

Bush's concern

Baird chided Bush last week for failing to file legal arguments defending his decision to restore Terri Schiavo's tube, saying that each day Bush delayed doing so, her constitutional rights presumably were being violated. Baird was careful to say that he was not offering a final judgment in the lawsuit, filed against the governor by Michael Schiavo.

Nonetheless, conservative activist Ken Connor, who is Bush's lead attorney in the case, said Baird needed to be removed because it appeared he had prejudged the matter before fully considering the governor's legal arguments.

Reached Wednesday evening, Baird's secretary said the judge thought it would be inappropriate to comment. Conner said the next step will be for Baird to rule on the motion of whether to remove himself.

In his filing, Connor said the governor viewed Baird's comments in the same light as a trial in the Lewis Carroll story, in which the King and Queen of Hearts sit in judgment of the Knave of Hearts, who's accused of stealing tarts.

"Let the jury consider their verdict," the King said.

"No, no!" said the Queen. "Sentence first -- verdict afterwards." When Alice protests, the Queen yells, "Off with her head!"

A matter of law

In an order issued last week, the judge reminded Bush that courts have repeatedly found that Terri Schiavo made it clear that she would not have wanted to be kept alive artificially. The 39-year-old Pinellas County woman suffered severe brain damage in 1990 after her heart stopped, depriving her brain of oxygen.

Her wishes have been "finally and conclusively established as a matter of law," Baird wrote.

Because Bush was not a party to the earlier lawsuit, Connor argued that what a previous court determined were her wishes should have no bearing in this case. So Wednesday, Bush's attorneys requested a jury be brought into to redetermine Terri Schiavo's wishes.

Michael Allen, a constitutional law professor at Stetson University College of Law, said the request for another examination of her wishes runs counter to standard legal procedure.

"Their findings may have been right, they may have been wrong, but they were a final judgment," he said. "It doesn't matter that the governor was not involved in the earlier case, just as it doesn't matter that you and I weren't involved with the case."

Defending privacy issue

Bush on Wednesday also offered his first constitutional defense of his intervention in the nationally watched right-to-die case.

Michael Schiavo's attorneys, the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida and some constitutional-law experts, argue that Terri's Law violates her right to privacy, which guarantees the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment. They also contend that because it effectively allowed Bush to throw out six years of court proceedings, it also violates the rigid separation of the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government.

But Bush's attorneys argued that the law strengthens Schiavo's right to privacy because it orders an independent guardian to review her case. And, they argued, while Schiavo has that right, it must be balanced against other "compelling state interests," including preserving human life, protecting the rights of disabled people such as herself and protecting the rights of family members.

Terri Schiavo's parents, Mary and Bob Schindler, have waged an international campaign against their son-in-law to keep their daughter alive.

"The disdain the governor has for Florida's privacy right is just astounding," said Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, which has joined Michael Schiavo's lawsuit. "He's saying that the desire of your family members is more important than what you would have wanted."

The ACLU and Michael Schiavo's attorney, George Felos, have repeatedly criticized Bush for what they call attempts to delay this case on technical points. Simon said the request to remove Baird appeared to be another attempt at delay, as did the request for a jury.

"The fact is this case is about whether this law is constitutional or not," Felos told The Associated Press. "I don't think the trial court is going to allow them to reopen six years of litigation."

Connor, in a conference call with reporters, dismissed suggestions that that Terri's Law violated the wall between the branches of government, saying the Legislature passes laws that affect court decisions regularly. For example, he cited a law that allows people behind bars to request DNA testing in closed cases.

"What the Legislature has done here is not novel," Connor said.

But Bruce Winick, who teaches constitutional law at the University of Miami, said the comparison was invalid. He said the DNA law gave a broad class of people the right to another court review, while "Terri's Law" was tailored to overturn a specific court decision.

In a statement, Bush said he was looking forward to proving his case in court.

"We are confident the Florida law protects rather than diminishes individual rights as outlined in the Constitution, and welcome the opportunity to prove that fact in court."

He speaks of the "narrow road" and "small gate" and "few there be that find it."

Differing views are produced by differing individuals. Let us image some physicist has written the definitive work on the constructs of the atom. This book contains everything; how, when, what, who, etc. Some things can be explained fairly easily: "The atom is the building block of all things we see and touch." Some things are beyond are capabilities: "The cubits when cubed are inversely rooted to the binds which force them to seperate." Many will say, "Yeah this man knows somethings about the atom, but he goes off the deep end, and I can't believe that." Some will say, "I don't understand it all, but everything is adding up."

So it is with the Bible. An infinite mind sent to us His message, His desires, His hope, His promises, and His judgements. We will never fully comprehend it for we are finite. That is why, in faith, we base the value of the Bible, not on the Bible, but rather the originator of it.

The Bible proclaims both Love and Brimstone depending on ones relationship with Christ.

You do remember your history correctly. This nation was founded by individuals seeking to escape the church run states common in Europe.

Well, I am sorry that it "doesn't wash with you". I wish I could personally show you these truths. Anyone who has edited the Bible is wrong and will be held accountable. If you are referring to translations, that is man's attempt to make the Bible available to all in their own tongue. True Bible scholars return to the original Greek and Hebrew texts to truly grasp the most accurate meanings. The Bible has passed every test thrown against it. If you study the number of times men have sought to eradicate it from their domains, the fact that it endures is nothing less than miraculous; because God will not let His Word be destroyed.

The only Roman support for the Bible was Constantine. Otherwise, they sought to destroy Christianity like no other (Nero). Even Paul, previously Saul, was known and feared by all Christians for his overtly aggressive attacks on anything Christian. Once converted, he was unaccepted for fear he was only trying to infultrate. Only through much suffering (stoning, prison, and death), humility, and constant focus on Christ was Paul accepted

Bin Laden: Hmmm - Mass murdering, selfish ambition vs. loving, humble, healing Savior.

To summize, Christ paid our debt, and God offers redemption through Christ. If we choose to refuse Christ we must bear the consequences, Hell.

I am condemning no one, I have not the authoritiy nor desire for such responsibility. I am pleading that you see Christ. See Him as your salvation and develop a relationship (not religion, with him).

P.S. The suffering of fire is nothing compaired to being in emotional/spiritual anguish because of being seperated from God.

Both the state and man can murder. Who is commiting the action does not justify nor condemn the action. Rather it is the motive of the action.

If the state fires off war for gain, out of spite/dislike, or other self based motive; all those who die therein are murdered.

If the state fires off war to protect its citizens, remove threatening parties, quell unjust and unruly adverseries; all those who die there who die therein are killed.

Capital punishment is just if intent is proven. If we show that a person had no respect for anothers life and angrily/selfishly caused that persons death, then justly they should be put to death.

I personally guarantee that if "Death Row" where less crowded, capital crimes would greatly diminish.

The last man excuted here in Queensland after undergoing a "Fair" trial and appeal was found to be "NOT GUILTY" 3 years after the event. But he had been properly tried, convicted, appealed and hung.

Now what is that he was Killed or was he Murdered?

Tyhe Old Testoment it is only the New Testoment that I have problems with and it is this part that has been heavily edited by the Roman Curch.

Incidetly it is also this very same instution who holds the "Original" documents and makes alledged copies available upon request but how can you be sure that what you are getting is not a revised edition instead of the original text.

But since you know the Bible so well Tell me what you know about the Knights Templar?

That will prove interesting and I'm not the slighest bit interested in the Papal Bull which Disbanded this arm of the Holy Roman Church what I want to know is what else you can find out about them, but then again I suspose you can tell me what the "Demonic" Pratices where that they where accused of in that Papal Bull.

I know what they where but do you?

I am nut sure what this is meant to achieve but I will answer as best I can.

What did I know of the Knights Templar? Outside of their name, nothing; but upon your request I have spent some time researching. I have no idea what this is to prove or disprove.

These men were started for decent causes, "living off alms", and escorting pilgrims to and from Jerusalem. Having fallen to greed, they dismissed all athority save for one fallen man(pope). They increased in wealth and power unto the point of managing and financing kings. Eventually falsely charged with heresy, and tortured into confession, they were stripped of power and wealth.

There are many more details, but I am not sure what you were trying to show me. Considering that all involved were fallen and unrepentant, I fail to see the application.

I will need you to narrow the focus a little.

Also, I am no Bible scholar. I attempt to study and learn as I can, but many know much more than I. The one thing I count valuable is the intimate relationship I have with the Bible's originator, Jesus Christ.

Maybe the person's life is worth more than monetary wealth. Can't take it with you

Who are we in a society to decide if anothers life is worth living?

Who are we to place a financial value on a life? If your day-to-day life has an excessive financial impact on society should society terminate you? for example, you drive on public roads too much, call the police and fire departments too much, get too much mail, have too many kids to in public schools and comparatively do not pay enough taxes should you become Soilent Green? Afterall, someone is paying for all that. Many of you seem to feel one would have to live a moderate life and if one became to dependent (terry) or too abusive (welfare state) then terminate them.

I understand your reference to Exodus and also know of many other biblical references to not killing, however are you a follower of the Hebrew faith or the Christian faith?

Most of the pro-lifers claim to be Christians yet they do not read and understand the bible fully.

In the Old Testament God (Jehova) gave the Jews many laws, mostly through Moses and the most important being the 10 Commandments. These laws covered many things which include 'thou shall not kill.' However, what most people forget is that these were laws for the Jews.

During his ministry Jesus said on a number of occassions that he fulfilled the law of Moses and that all previous laws were now replaced by the two laws that he brought:

1. Love thy God with all thy heart, mind and soul.

2. Love thy brother as thy self, or love one another as I have loved you.

Thus a true Christian does NOT allow the 10 commandments to rule their life but allows the two laws to rule their life. Now under these two laws if you would not practice euthanasia on yourself you would be wrong to do so on anyone else, but if you believe that it is right for you to be permitted to die under certain conditions then it is OK for you to allow the same for others as you are treating them as you would yourself.

Jews can push the right for life as a requirement of God under the 10 commandments but a Christian has NO theological support for that position.

Sorry, but as I said you hit one of my buttons, I detest Christians who see the Jewish laws as being more important and prefer to live them to the Christian laws, especially the ones who love the 'eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth'.

The Knights Templar where prevented from spending any of their income under the charter which was drawn up for their founding by Saint C {whatever as I'm working from memory here and can't be bothered looking it up but needless to say he was a well reconised Roman Saint who co-founded the Knights Templar} so these knights took a vow of poverty but the order could not spend ony of it's wealth they came to be seen as a very usefull source of income when the Roman Church ran on hard times for them anyway and at the time they where not in favour because the Holy Land had again fallen to the Infidel and they where held responsible so it was a political decision to disband them 1 for their wealth which was mainly in land holdings across all of what is now known as Europe. But the interesting thing here is the fact that only land was recovered when the order was disbanded and none of their religious artifacts or any monetary wealth was recovered but they where responsible for founding the first banking system where travelers could deposit money at one end of a journey and redeme it at the other end so they could not be robbed while enroute. They also had a lot of infulence in many areas and their emblyn was always on any endevour that was undertaken under their protection like Chris Columbus as an example. Anything with the Rose Cross on it is related to the Templars and they where very important in their day.
Incidently the main reason mentioned in the Papal Bull which disbanded them was Demonic Pratices and if you actually take the time to look what these where it was mainly the use of mould off oranges to prevent infections in battle wounds. Sound farmilar 700 years before penicilin?

So for a largly unknown order they where very infulentual and responsible for many of todays instutions and this was what brought down the wrath of the Holy Roman Church the fact that they did more for the people that the main Church did and they where considered by many of the time as being better than the Roman Church which at the time was the only Christian Church allowed and this was under force of arms ruled by the Roman Church. There where also many instances of the Templars protecting the so called enemies of the Roman Church when the other arms of the churches miletary was bought to bear. Incidently when these people where asked to fight for the Church they where only required to fight for 75 days and everything that they got durring this time was given to the Church but if they chose to stay on longer than the 75 days they where then entitles to 50% of all the loot that they plundered {Sorry but that is an easily provable historical fact so the Crusades wern't all that holy only gready.} Again something that the Templars never could do bt what made them more interesting to the Roman Church was the fact that they where prevented by their charter which the Roman Church approved in giving any booty or money to the Church so while they had a vast income they could not dispose of any of it they very rapidly became a very wealthy order and owing to what they did where feared by the Roman Church as anyone who sought their protection was garantied of it at the cost of the lives of those guarding whoever asked for protection. Naturally no other wing of the fighting part of the Roman Church ever took direct action against the Templars as the retubition would have been swift and total.

As far as the Templars being so powerful they exercised no more power than the rest of the Roman Church however they did educate their converts so they could read and write which was something that the Roman Church didn't recomend at the time also it was not unknown for the main represintivies of the Roman Church to excercise power over the Crown heads of countries at that time or latter refer Joan of Arch as an example.

Do you yet see any real purpose why I asked the question here yet? If you would like some more information you can contact me directly as I'm sure that not many people are all that interested here.

Col

The correct saying is "When in Doubt Pull It Out!"

I only mentioned the EEG because there would be a further waste of money involved in doing any more tests if the EEG came back as no electrical activity in the Brain the reast while nice are all very expensive and pointless.

However the cheaper alternative is a simple test administered by Doctors and that is reaction to pain stimuls if none then as you say the body is nothing more than a warm spare parts base.

You're description of this movie is a bit one sided as I remember it the people where told that Plankton was used to make Soylent Green didn't know that it was the remians of people that they where eating it was only found out by someone investigating the food problem and there where a lot of hurdles placed in the way.

From memory Soylent Green was susposed to be made from Plankton that had been transplanted in the Mediterian or somewhere similar but it failed to grow and this was the starting point of the investigation. As the people who where looking wanted to know where the Plankton was coming from.

The other issue was that people chose to end their lives as well and this was an acceptiable alternative by the Government {for want of a better word as I can no longer remember exactly what they called themselves but I have a vuage idea that it was something to do with a Free Enterprise Corporation.}

Then again you also copuld have chosen "LOGANS RUNN" where people who reached 30 years of age where killed by the system but they where under the impression that by participating in the Carosele {I think} where they had the oportinuty of reaching a better life or higher plain of existance. And the "Sanctury" was a hoped for thing that was against the closed enviroment of the dome that they all lived in.

This was a society in which values changed so drastically that they placed values on other peoples lifes then made food out of them.

I wonder if there was any corruption and people were made into food when they should not have been?

And everyone feels so strongly isn't it time to change the way things are done rather than attempting to defend a system that has for some reason become a power hungry moster.

Or is it that as usual most people just don't seem to care?

I haven't seen it for a very long time and it was only the once. I suspose I must bring my head up from the insides of a Computer/manual far more often.