Terry Schiavo

Damn, wrong again!

Euthanasia: The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment.

Genocide: The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

If you can't tell the difference, there is no point in talking with you.

 

Of course he did commit genocide. He was also a big fan of euthanasia for the disabled, the "enfeebled", as well as homosexuals, christians, slavs, communists, Jews, etc., etc. He did not just kill Jews and the like, but believed that those who do not contribute to society, who are handicapped, etc., should also be killed, and moreover, have no right to live. He killed many of them alongside the others in concentration camps. I brought this up because the parameters were suddenly expanded in this thread to include people who do not contribute to society. A little disturbing. BTW, look up life support in a Medical Dictionary-She's not on it!

 

here here!! I hate it when people get terms mixed up.

 

Hitler was NOT killing people to end their suffering! He was killing them because he didn't think they were worthy of life. Again, HUGE difference between euthanasia and genocide!

Also, feeding tube = life support!! Why? Um, because if they take it out she dies! Sounds to me it's supporting life!

 

If you would just take the time to read. Did Hitler only kill Jews in Concentration Camps? No. He not only supported the euthanasia of the handicapped and otherwide "enfeebled", he put this belief into practice. Of course he committed genocide, but he killed many ethnic germans who he didn't approve of as well--homosexuals, communists, christians, jews, and the handicapped and those with birth defects or low intelligence. Look it up-it's true. Before you jump to conclusions and go off half-cocked listen to what I say. Once we, as a society, start deciding who and who is not fit to live, we are starting down a dangerous road. That's all. If the person themself wants to die, decides that life is no longer worth living-great, they should be able to do what they want. I do not want, however, a stranger making that decision for me.

 

What can I say, degenerates love death.

BTW - I agree with you, Robo. We are heading in that direction.

 

You must have some sort of problem with reading comprehension. I never equated euthanasia to genocide. I simply, again I say this, pointed out that Hitler had several programs for the euthanasia (their term) of those they deemed a drain on society. They believed it WAS compassionate to kill these people, don't you get it? They believed they should to make their society better and put them "out of their misery" for want of a better word. As I said before, look it up!

 

Dude, read the definition again.

Euthanasia is death to end suffering. Hitler was NOT killing people to end suffering, therefore he was NOT supporting euthanasia.

He committed genocide, straight up, no questions asked. Genocide of jews, genocide of handicapped, genocide of homosexuals, genocide of anyone he didn't like.

Again, euthanasia is to end suffering; genocide is not.

 

Ohhh!! So you mean if a bunch of strange congressman and a strange president get together and decide a person who has virtually no life functions should continue to live, against that person's wish, it's okay?

Keep on contradicting yourself and using incredibly overzealous analogies such as Hitler and eventually you may arrive at a logical conclusion!! (though I highly doubt it)

 

yeah, we are letting this person suffer. let her suffer for 15 years in fact.

 

This is the last post I'm going to make on this topic, because I find myself having to repeat what I've said. There are many autistic people who have essentially the same level of functiong she does, sans feeding tube. She has not become partially independent because she has been denied any rehabilitative treatment by her husband. Many experts (see prev. posts) believe she could become functional with proper treatment. Remarks made by several people indicated that she would want to live. Conversely, how do you know she DOESN'T? Death is irreversible. People worse off than her have made significant recoveries. Or better yet, do some research before you form opinions, if you are really interested. It really doesn't matter what we think anyway, because I am sure they will probably not reinsert the tube. I just think once courts start deciding if someone, not convicted of a capital crime, should die, we are getting into dangerous territory. This process is really nothing different from the type of federal review that would occur for a condemned prisoner. And how am I contradicting myself?

 

Get it through your head. They believed, or at least said, they were being merciful. Who is to say that once "we" start deciding people can or should not live, no matter what the intentions are, there can be disastrous consequences. Who decides what is merciful, who decides fitness for life? I refer you to the Netherlands, which has a euthanasia program. Well, many people beyond the original established parameters are being euthanized and not all in accordance to their wishes. If someone wants to die, fine. But if there is doubt, people need to be very careful. That's all I'm saying.

 

The point is, no one has proven what her wishes are, one way or the other. More evidence indicates tha she really would not want to be euthanized. And I find this method of starvation, far from merciful. Again, tell me how I am contradicting myself. You've demonstrated your inability to understand the simple point I am making, so I am sure any perceived contradictions are the result of popr reading comprehension.

 

I think someone is just afraid of being wrong...LOL

 

I think they should execute her along with scott peterson.

 

I don't know if it's because it's so late, but that may be the first sensible thing you've said all day...

 

Okay, I was gonna let it go but then you went and insulted my reading comprehension.

The truth is the point you are making is completely wrong. I don't care if Hitler said he was giving the jews, homosexuals, and handicapped a birthday present. Pure and simple it was genocide, not euthanasia. Why you cannot understand this I do not know. Death which does not end suffering is not euthanasia, it is genocide. PERIOD.

You contradict yourself by saying that you will die "when it is your time to die." So, if you go into a coma, is it your time to die? No, not yet huh? What about when you come out and are essentially brain dead? Still not yet? What about 15 years later after your feeding tube (read: life support) has been removed 3 times? No??? Still not time?! You can't claim to want to die when it's your time if you advocate this sort of behaviour.

You want it to be a person's choice, right? Good, I agree. That means Mrs. Schiavo needs to feed herself if she chooses to stay alive. Oh, wait, she can't, right? So we should continue to feed her? For how long? Until she can make the choice herself (which will likely be never)?

Congress, Mr. Dubya, and her parents have chosen to feed her with a tube. Did she ask for the tube? Could she even reject the tube if she wanted to?

If you can't see this, perhaps I should question YOUR reading comprehension.

 

As a side note, starvation IS an incredibly bad way to make her die. THIS is why I say responsible euthanasia is important.

 

thats why I said they should save time and money and execute both her and scott peterson at the same time its called being efficient.

 

Feeding tube - Supplies nutrients to patients who cannot eat on their own
Life support - Breathing machine for patients who cannot breathe on their own

BIG DIFFERENCE

Once the plug is pulled on life support, one dies within a mere matter of seconds or minutes. Without a feeding tube, one suffers from dehydration and starvation. A human can survive for forty days without food. It is debatable how many days one can survive without water. We are unaware if she has actually suffered physical pain due to the brain damage, however, we are aware that without food, one does suffer physical pain. Granted, brain damage is irreversible, however, forcing someone to starve to death is barbaric. Euthanization is more humane than removing a feeding tube.