Patterico's Pontifications

3/19/2005

A Really Stupid Argument in Favor of Killing Terri Schiavo

Filed under: Schiavo — Patterico @ 7:07 pm



I hear a lot of people saying: I wouldn’t want to be kept alive in Terri Schiavo’s condition. So she should be allowed to die.

If this is your opinion, I have a question for you.

My mom works at a school for severely disabled children. Many of them are in their teens, but have a mental age of only a few weeks. They drool. They are wheelchair-bound. They are wall-eyed. They cannot feed themselves.

Would you want to live like that? I bet if you asked many people if they would want to live like that, they would say no.

If your answer is “no” — are you saying we should just kill these children?

48 Responses to “A Really Stupid Argument in Favor of Killing Terri Schiavo”

  1. I read. Often I read about a person struck with an incurable degenerative disease. While they ae still in, temporary, good health, they tell their family and doctor, if I am ever on a resperator, or, if I ever can only move a few twiches in my face. From their good health, such a limited existance looks like less than worth living. When the time comes suddenly it looks like a good enough life to continue.

    I don;t want to live that way is diferent when theory from when reality. Dostoyevsky said when faced with death, six inches on the edge of a clif for eternity was good enough quality of life to beg for.

    Doug_S (b1666c)

  2. Can I edit that? I should have used preview. Cheers.

    Doug_S (b1666c)

  3. We have limited funds to spend on healthcare, it’s a reality so with that in mind are we better off spending millions to keep a person alive that will NEVER get better, NEVER get out of bed, NEVER have anything close to a normal life or spend that money so 1000s of people CAN get better and CAN live normal lives? Is it sad that she will pass away yes but it’s sadder to think 1000s of others won’t get better or live a normal life because that money was spent keeping someone alive in that state. When is it acceptable to let someone go? With our technology today we can keep bodies alive for decades after the person is gone, where do we draw the line?

    Nate Ogden (852a30)

  4. I’m asking you, Nate. Where my mom works, there is an entire school set up, at taxpayer expense, to take care of these kids.

    Would you rather see the money saved, by killing the kids?

    By contrast, Terri Schiavo’s parents have offered to pay for her care. To my knowledge, keeping her alive is costing taxpayers nothing.

    Patterico (756436)

  5. It’s always easier to write people off when they mean little or nothing to you. On the other hand, every life is precious when they matter to you personally. Should decisions of such a critical nature be placed in the hands of the former, Nate? Or the latter?

    I submit to you that basing life or death decisions solely on dollar costs is not only inhuman but devalues every life, including yours. There is a time for dying for every man. Should yours be chosen by others?

    antimedia (465599)

  6. Patrick:

    Two different things – someone saying that they would not want to live in a certain way is different than saying that no one should live in that condition.

    steve sturm (a27d61)

  7. I’m betting, Nate, that you are a neoliberal or a leftist. Who else would try to paint a defenseless woman as logically responsible for the suffering of thousands because she refuses to die? Incredible. Just incredibly base and perfect leftist logic.

    mikem (fd2aad)

  8. Doug, you’re missing the point of the debate over this. This is not about whether Schiavo’s life is worth living. Some will say it is, some will say it isn’t, which is precisely why someone has to be designated to make this choice for her since she’s unable to do so herself.

    If Terri had made it clearly known before her disability that she did not want to live in the state she’s in now (and I don’t mean Florida), by your suggestions here about he kids were your mother works, we would have to compel Schiavo to contiunue her life despite of her unambiguous statement to the contrary. Why? Because maybe she would have changed her mind, or maybe life is worth living, or whatever you want to come up with. I mean as long as that’s a possibility of joy in her life, we’d have to keep her alive, right?

    But if I want to die, Doug, who are you to tell me that I’m not “allowed” to do that? And if I’m unable to make that choice why must the default position being forced to live like a venus fly trap? To you it’s whether life is worth living; to the law it must be about who gets to makes that decision.

    p.s. I just love the “Live Preview of Comment” feature on this blog. How cool!

    Richard Ames (adfcb0)

  9. This is exactly the problem. My 12-year-old son is severely autistic and requires around-the-clock care by someone. Currently that is my husband, me, our two older children and a 30-hour-per-week caregiver.

    He will never produce anything in his life (except cuteness) and he will always be a burden on someone.

    The Terri Schiavo case makes it more likely that at some point – probably when he is no longer cute – somebody will say “enough” and eliminate my resource-hog son.

    Physically he is incredibly healthy and strong – he doesn’t suffer from the “stress diseases” that the rest of us do, for one thing. They will have to actively eliminate him.

    Of course, such a thing would be over my dead body.

    I shudder to think of what Terri’s parents are going through.

    Teri (afca91)

  10. Steve Sturm:

    Exactly. They are two different things. Yet for many, one flows directly from the other.

    My point is that it shouldn’t.

    Patterico (756436)

  11. Terri’s husband says that she should be allowed to die because she had expressed a desire not to live under those conditions. OK, but if she truly is in a persistant vegetative state, there is supposedly no one home according to her doctors. If there is no cognitive thinking going on in her brain, she is essentially brain dead already, so why not let here parents care for her if they want to?

    Bill (d53947)

  12. Pardon me if I’m not as iron-clad ideological as most of those who comment on this tragic situation. I can see arguments for both sides of this controversy, but I’ll be goddamned if I believe that the government should be involved!

    All I can say is that guy called Satan, who introduced evil into this world, is having a lot of beers and howling with laughter at those idiot Republicans and Democrats who are trying to general ideological grist from this mess.

    Hey people, do you really think we’re doing Terri’s family any favors by pontificating and generating tons of obnoxious gas over her situation?

    Mescalero (92af82)

  13. I find it amusing how other people want to get between the husband and his now 10-years dying wife’s wishes to go peaceful and quickly to this mythical land of Heaven. That the parents feel it necessary to keep this vegetable here against her husband’s and her own wishes (oral that they be) after ten years is a travesty of human life and suffering. None of these parties gives a rip about Terry — only in getting their way. For her husband,we can say he’s looking out of her best interests to let her go to Heaven rather than keep her here so the medical industry can make a bonanza off her condition against her will!

    That so many people are frothing at the mouth on this very private issue and simultaneously want to control this poor womens fate. Whatever happens to dearest Terry, it is not murder and not
    anyone’s business after having used her as a football to kick around these past 10+ years!!

    If anything, God will unleash his wrath on those who make her suffer and suffer and suffer occupying a hospital bed for no good reason at this stage in her life rather than let her meet her maker in the land of milk and honey.

    The same crowd that wants to dictate how you can
    die is at it again. They want their pound of flesh, these religious fanatics and zealouts.
    That’s how I see it.

    why not optional? Liars will lie anyway (01f963)

  14. If you have been following this story in depth, you would know that only her ‘sainted’ husband claims that she expressed such wishes. Most suspiciously to all but the hatefully blind, he suddenly had this memory soon after a lawsuit was won and her care started eating into the money. Those who draw a picture of a loving husband trying to carry out his dear wife’s wishes are either willfully ignoring the circumstances or are simply enjoying the opportunity to engage in hate.
    ” That the parents feel it necessary to keep this vegetable here against her husband’s and her own wishes (oral that they be) after ten years is a travesty of human life and suffering”
    I’ll pass over the “vegetable” remark since it, and the authors cowardice, speak for themselves. But by the writers own logic, her husband committed the same travesty by failing to pass on her wishes prior to the lawsuit being settled. Funny how her husband decided to finally end her suffering only after her estate received a large settlement, which was intended to provide for her future medical care.

    mikem (fd2aad)

  15. “When is that bitch gonna die?”
    Michael Schiavo (left) and Scott Peterson become confused in the mind’s eye, blurred with media overkill, as two men cursed with inconvenient wives.

    sisu (af7df9)

  16. Yes people, her husband is an a**hole. But that doesn’t make his position wrong. We don’t have to like or agree with what he is trying to do, but his behavior and comments are not sufficient to go making new law and federal cases out of what the courts – both state and federal – have (supposedly) already resolved.

    Contrary to the claims made by those wanting to keep her alive, including some commenters above, the finding of fact was reviewed by an appeals court,which came to the same conclusion as the lower court (or at the least, found no grounds to reverse his decision).

    And Patrick: given how many people will improperly go from one issue to the other, why help them by bringing it up?

    steve sturm (a27d61)

  17. Terry Schiavo is wasting away in a hellish un-life of stagnation. It’s ironic that the Republicans are so quick to defend her right to exist, yet they are pro-death penalty and they unilaterally start illegal wars that result in the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians. The people preaching about Schiavo’s “right” to live should start volunteering time at a local hospice to get a taste of what it is like to caretake for a vegetative person (I have). Most of these protesters have nothing better to do, so they have jumped on this cause. It’s more empty moral-posturing from a hypocritical nation obsessed with sex and violence. Unless those Republicans have been in a situtation similar to Terry or her husband, then they should shut up and stop pandering for media exposure and votes.

    Hypocrites one and all. Where is all the concern about slaughtered Arab civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan?

    And yes, to answer your other question, those mooked-up kids should have been euthanized in the womb. Crippled-up, non-functional people are a drag on society’s resources. China has the right idea with a robust eugenics program. In a nutshell, if it drools, has no body control and cannot function with 24-hour assistance, then that person should be put down by lethal injection.

    Crawling Chaos (8f7c88)

  18. Yes people, her husband is an a**hole. But that doesn’t make his position wrong. We don’t have to like or agree with what he is trying to do, but his behavior and comments are not sufficient to go making new law and federal cases out of what the courts – both state and federal – have (supposedly) already resolved.

    I think they are sufficient. Because the public’s eyes are now open to the fact that a single judge can make life-or-death decisions, based on the hearsay testimony of a witness with several personal axes to grind, using the same standard of proof that is used to determine whether McDonald’s must pay punitive damages to someone who spilled coffee on their lap.

    Contrary to the claims made by those wanting to keep her alive, including some commenters above, the finding of fact was reviewed by an appeals court,which came to the same conclusion as the lower court (or at the least, found no grounds to reverse his decision).

    That is a critical qualification, Steve. Appellate courts don’t review findings of fact anew in cases like this. They review them according to an extremely lax standard of “abuse of discretion.” Even if the appellate judges disagree with the lower court’s findings, they are required to affirm them so long as the findings were not done completely improperly. So the findings are all based on the decision of a single judge.

    And Patrick: given how many people will improperly go from one issue to the other, why help them by bringing it up?

    What in the world are you talking about? I am taking an argument I disagree with (I think “a” and therefore “b” follows) and showing it to be totally illogical. How is that “helping” the people who make that argument???

    Patterico (756436)

  19. Crawling Chaos:

    Unless those Republicans have been in a situtation similar to Terry or her husband, then they should shut up and stop pandering for media exposure and votes.

    Terri’s parents have been in the situation of caring for someone in that state, and they are willing to do it.

    And yes, to answer your other question, those mooked-up kids should have been euthanized in the womb. Crippled-up, non-functional people are a drag on society’s resources. China has the right idea with a robust eugenics program. In a nutshell, if it drools, has no body control and cannot function with 24-hour assistance, then that person should be put down by lethal injection.

    Your answer refutes itself quite well without my help, but I will point out that many of these kids my mom cares for are abuse victims. So your solution of killing them in the womb, Communist-style, wouldn’t work for all of them.

    Thank you for illustrating my point better than I ever could have.

    Patterico (756436)

  20. Given my druthers, a single judge ought not to have the power to make that determination. But that’s the way Florida decided to work things – and there hasn’t been either a federal or state court that felt Florida overstepped its authority to do so.

    And Florida law doesn’t say that someone shall be kept alive so long as someone somewhere is willing to pick up the tab. Nor does it say that person shall be kept alive so long as someone somewhere disagrees with those seeking to discontinue feeding/medicine/treatment.

    We may disagree with the way Florida law is written. We may agree that the husband is an a**. But we’re still obligated to follow the law – even when a**holes benefit.

    Has anyone anywhere shown that the law hasn’t been followed… as it is written? and not as we’d like to have been the case?

    And, one can always find idiots (such as those proposing a national euthanisia program, or racists in favor of eliminating affirmative action) who are in favor of a certain outcome… but that doesn’t mean the outcome is wrong.

    steve sturm (a27d61)

  21. Every story mentioning the subject I have seen says the Hospice cost $70,000 a year and they have not been paid in a number of years, medicaid is picking up the cost. If the parents want to take her home and care for her that is entirely in their right and good luck to them.

    Antimedia, wasn’t Teri’s time for dying chosen by others when they took measures to keep her alive? When is it time to let someone go is the question, we have the technology to keep parts of humans alive for decades if not eternity, becuase we can does that make it right? Should we store the DNA and functioning organs of every person we can and clone or regrow their defects? 100 years from now when would a person truly be dead, when their body is destroyed beyond the capabilities of our technology to repair it or do we set limits on how far we go in saving pieces of people? Everyone is happy to live in this idealist world were everything is done to save every piece of life but no one wants to discuss or even start to deal with the ramifications. Majority of people that die could have a heart, brain or some part of them kept functioning by artifical means, do we want huge factories and plants full of partial people being kept alive for what? Mircle they might get better? So we don;t have to accept their life is over? I have never heard anyone say what our goal is when it comes to keeping people alive artificially. Do I wish we had limitless resources and no one ever died, yes in some ways that would be great, but death happens for a reason and we can’t have life without it.

    Nate Ogden (852a30)

  22. Mikem, if for some reason someone felt compelled to label me or call me names 99% of the time it would be neoconservative or right.

    Nate Ogden (852a30)

  23. Has anyone anywhere shown that the law hasn’t been followed… as it is written? and not as we’d like to have been the case?

    Two words: Terri’s Law. You haven’t really been following this case much, have you?

    Xrlq (c51d0d)

  24. Steve,

    I think the law has been followed here, but it’s a travesty. It should be changed for the future. And if there is a legal way to change it for this case, that should be a serious option as well.

    Patterico (756436)

  25. X,

    Yeah, but that was struck down. We may disagree with that ruling, but I’m not sure that’s what Steve meant.

    Even if nothing can be done to save Terri Schiavo — and I hope something can — I think the law should be changed to keep these situations from recurring. No one judge should have so much power.

    Patterico (756436)

  26. Patterico–

    Kill them? No. Teach them? If they are ancephalic or otherwise unable to interact with the world, also no.

    Would you risk your life to save one of them from a fire? Perhaps, but many would not.

    What defines “human”? Shape? Genome? Thought? Intelligence? Not easy to answer, and reasonable people can differ. The argument that a human-shaped being with no cerebral function is still human is not so clear-cut. Even in a spiritual sense, one must wonder if the soul is gone.

    There is a difference between “killing” and “allowing to die” — the former term seeming a bit perjorative. Must we interfere with natural processes, just because we can?

    What is “dead” anyway? Used to be the heart stopping meant dead, but that hardly even matters anymore. Most folks now consider it to be irreversible brain inactivity, although they differ on what that means, exactly. The Schiavo case seems to straddle the border, with an a**hole husband thrown into the mix, but reasonable people can differ.

    I’m a LOT more concerned with late term abortions than I am with what happens to what’s left of Terry Schiavo. I feel for her parents, but they seem to have a bit of a problem accepting that their daughter is, at least by my lights, quite dead. Of course, it’s not my call. Question is, is it their’s?

    Kevin Murphy (6a7945)

  27. Fair enough point.

    I think the Florida Legislature tried but was rebuffed. I’m not sure there are any more good options.

    steve sturm (a27d61)

  28. There is a difference between “killing” and “allowing to die” – the former term seeming a bit perjorative. Must we interfere with natural processes, just because we can?

    That strikes me as sophistry in the case of a human being who can be kept alive if cared for, but will die without care.

    If I refuse to feed or care for a newborn baby in my care, it will die. Is that a natural process?

    Patterico (756436)

  29. “…racists in favor of eliminating affirmative action”
    I couldn’t ask for a better example of liberal cluelessness than this writers casual remark that those who oppose racial discrimination are racists. Orwellian claptrap like this is why liberals shame themselves by proposing speech codes to ‘protect free speech’, race based fraternities to ‘promote diversity’ et al. There must be a extra chromosome that accounts for how these grand efforts of intellect seem entirely logical to the average liberal.

    mikem (fd2aad)

  30. Patterico–

    Your newborn is alive. Not in question. Terry Schiavo is 15 years dying, but not yet dead. When is enough? Who decides?

    Right now, the law says that her “guardian” decides. Since you don’t like that option (or, like me, her guardian), what objective test do you propose the law use in these cases?

    Clearly, a parent who did not feed their newborn would be prosecuted, barring truly horrific defects. If Terry’s parents agreed with hubby, would one prosecute them for pulling the tube? Surely not, as these decisions are made ALL the time.

    Calling it killing, and comparing it to starving a healthy newborn is, I repeat, pejorative.

    Kevin Murphy (6a7945)

  31. Wow, mikem, my head is spinning. Your last comment properly condemns the inappropriate implication that all who oppose affirmative action are racist. You then immediately follow up by applying the identical fallacy to your subsequent commentary with statements like these:

    • Orwellian claptrap like this is why liberals shame themselves…
    • …these grand efforts of intellect seem entirely logical to the average liberal.

    So now I, being an “average liberal,” behave in the ways you described? Guess what, mikem…that’s bullshit! Stark, raving, hypocritical bullshit!

    But thanks anyway for proving your own point in the first place (and also expanding it to include yourself). Ya clap-trapping, Orwellian bastard. 😉

    Tom (817695)

  32. You really had to reach a bit there, Tom, didn’t you? It certainly doesn’t take much to get your head spinning. And you missed my point. Affirmative action is racism in practice, quite obviously and by definition. It is not that ‘not all opposed are racist’ as you are attempting to restate my point. Liberals are welcome to make all sorts of assumptions regarding average conservatives, as long as there is some logic to it. Speech codes, skin color preferences, a whole panoply of demands based on racial identities are the heart and soul of liberal thought on and off campus. If you take umbrage at being associated with those positions perhaps you need to reassess your identity as an average liberal.
    (The bastard remark will get you through the club door, though.)

    mikem (fd2aad)

  33. I have a question:

    If Schiavo had made it clear, before she became handicapped, that she wanted no feeding tubes to keep her alive, should that directive now be honored?

    People should be astounded at the White House’s (and therefore I’m assuming a significant number of Republican’s) answer to my question. White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, said this today: “Everyone recognizes that time is important here. This is about defending life …

    Excuse me? I thought this was about who makes this decision about your life. If this debate is about “defending life” then the answer to my question is, No, Ms. Schiavo, we could care less about what you would have wanted for yourself. The government will make this decision for you. We it wants you alive!

    Shouldn’t this surprise people? Shouldn’t we be surprised that the leader of a party, a party that has championed individual rights over government power for decades is now, is saying that Schiavo’s wishes in all this are irrelevant, that the government would want to keep her tubing in place anyway?

    This debate is now nothing more than the abortion argument at the other end of life.

    I have a follow-up question. Are Republican’s in favor of limited government anymore, or was that just something that sounded good when they didn’t have power?

    Richard Ames (adfcb0)

  34. Kevin:

    Right now, the law says that her “guardian” decides. Since you don’t like that option (or, like me, her guardian), what objective test do you propose the law use in these cases?

    I describe it here.

    Calling it killing, and comparing it to starving a healthy newborn is, I repeat, pejorative.

    I intend it to sound pejorative. I think starving and dehydrating this woman is not a natural process; it’s barbaric.

    Patterico (756436)

  35. Richard Ames:

    Shouldn’t we be surprised that the leader of a party, a party that has championed individual rights over government power for decades is now, is saying that Schiavo’s wishes in all this are irrelevant, that the government would want to keep her tubing in place anyway?

    I absolutely think her wishes are relevant. I just don’t trust that we know them.

    Patterico (756436)

  36. Calling it killing, and comparing it to starving a healthy newborn is, I repeat, pejorative.

    You talk about that as if it’s a bad thing.

    Xrlq (c51d0d)

  37. Mikem:

    I always thought I was a conservative; imagine my surprise to learn from your comment (29) that I’m just another clueless liberal.

    steve sturm (e37e4c)

  38. Well, Steve, if you support discrimination against some to provide equal results for certain others, then you hold a very liberal view. Some liberals would consider your view that Schiavo’s “a**hole” ex-husband should hold the last word in whether she lives or is starved to death to be patently conservative in its male centric aspect. But in fact this is lining up conservative/live and liberal/starve. That this matches up nicely with the liberal view on abortion just further solidifies this as a liberal cause.
    Affirmative action has no intellectual basis. It is, by definition, racist since it uses racial identity to bestow opprotunity. That is illiberal. It also involves the heavy hand of government in deciding who suceeds in America, again based on racial identity. It is not liberal or conservative. It is ‘special interest’ at its worst.

    mikem (fd2aad)

  39. Your answer refutes itself quite well without my help, but I will point out that many of these kids my mom cares for
    are abuse victims. So your solution of killing them in the womb, Communist-style, wouldn’t work for all of them.
    My answer “refutes itself” in the eyes of those too weak to make the tough calls in life. This is a harsh world that
    sometimes calls for harsh measures. The indians had a fine way of dealing with non-viable persons : they left them to
    die in the woods. Better for the family, better for the whole tribe. Call that “communist” or what-have-you, but it
    is a system that would work much better than the current one. What’s more, if many of those “mooked up” kids your mom
    cares for are “abuse victims” then it sounds like the job wasn’t finished. It doesn’t matter if the vegetable/tard
    is a result of nature, abuse, or an auto accident, my point is still valid. If someone will never enjoy happiness,
    never have kind of a life, and they require 24-hour assistance to live, then that person is nothing more
    than a glorified PET that should be put down. I am sorry Patterico if that sounds cruel or uncaring, I’m not just
    trying to be contrary here. When all emotions are put aside and only logic is considered, it makes perfect sense to
    euthanize those people who are “living” only by the assistance of machines and the charity of others.

    My main problem with the Schiavo case is this : If Terry was single or widowed and her parents were all she had,
    then I would say let the parents care for her for the remainder of her existence. But she has a living husband
    and he should speak for his wife. I am married and I love my wife deeply, she is my soulmate. Sure, her parents
    brought her into this world and raised her, but I KNOW her much more intimately than they ever did. I know what makes
    her tick, I know all of her innermost desires and needs. In my case at least, I wouldn’t
    trust my meddling, incompetent in-laws for a second with my wife’s well-being. They did enough damage already when
    she was growing up.

    The last Chaos word :

    Terry’s parents : BUTT OUT.
    Republicans : BUTT OUT.
    Everybody else : Find something more interesting and relevant to debate. We have an evil tyrant rushing this country
    headlong into a series of perpetual wars for the sole purpose of petroleum profits. I think that is much more worthy
    of discussion than some poor vegetable who suddenly everybody gives a shit about because she is a ticket to media-exposure,
    soundbites and votes.

    Thank you for illustrating my point better than I ever could have.

    Glad I could be of service, and thank YOU for proving one of my long-standing points, which is that most Americans are too distracted by non-news to have their priorities straight. We are butchering thousands of innocent people and yet we are worried about some bulimic-vegetable who put herself in the position she’s in now. Waaah, cry me river. Wake up people!

    Crawling Chaos (39a619)

  40. And yes, if you hold opposition to racial discrimination to be racist, as you clearly stated, then “clueless” applies.
    FWIW, I voted Democrat most of my life (I’m 51) and consider myself to be liberal, but my liberal principles have been abandoned by the Democrats, so I vote to marginalize the Democratic Party in as many elections as I am eligible to vote in. As a veteran, the nomination of the arch anti-veteran Kerry to be CIC was a final straw and I will never support a Democratic Party candidate again.

    mikem (fd2aad)

  41. Crawling Chaos, what a hip ‘in the shit’ avatar. You are so OUTRAGEOUS, dude. Original, individualistic, truth to power. Sooo cute, man.

    mikem (fd2aad)

  42. Mikem:

    Talk about clueless: where do you get the idea that I support affirmative action? My comment (20) is that while one can certainly find racists against affirmative action, not everybody who is against affirmative action is racist.

    Likewise, some of those who are against intervention in the Schiavo case would also pull the plug on kids such as those taken care of by Patterico’s mom.. but not all of those who are against intervention.

    steve sturm (e37e4c)

  43. ” And, one can always find idiots (such as those proposing a national euthanisia program, or racists in favor of eliminating affirmative action) who are in favor of a certain outcome…”

    I reread your post and with your clear statement of opposition to AA I see that I didn’t pick up your point. You made a statement that is almost a mantra with AA advocates and with my habit of skimming posts rather than examining them, I missed your underlining reasoning that not everyone’s motive is the same for each position. I apologize for misunderstanding and misstating your position on AA.

    mikem (fd2aad)

  44. Mikem:

    I know the feeling, I’ve done that myself too many times myself.

    steve sturm (a27d61)

  45. Mikem :

    Your sarcasm cuts me so deep. I guess that will show me. I’ll go crawl back under my rock now. Gee, I wish I was as smart and cool as you.

    Domo Arigato Mr. Roboto.

    CC

    Crawling Chaos (b95c1d)

  46. Mikem :

    BTW, I just got your “avatar” comment. This delayed reaction is justified given the fact that you do not know an “avatar” from a “screen name”.

    Crawling Chaos is a “screen name” not an avatar, an avatar is a small “photo” or gif that gives a visual depiction of a screen name. So next time you fire up your limp sarcasm, get your lingo straight.

    Besides, it is original. I have been using that screen name since 1987, probably before you moved out of your mother’s basement.

    CC

    Crawling Chaos (b95c1d)

  47. Mine is the common usage of the term, Mr. Crawling Chaos. As in “no use of multiple avatars allowed”. If there is an original technical usage that I and others are not honoring then I apologize to all geeks who would take the time to complain.
    It is still a juvenile attempt to be outrageous and your posts are deliberately hateful to a dying woman and anybody who cares about her. So, in that spirit, and with your reference to ‘my mothers basement’ I’ll stipulate that you are a total asshole and young punk trying to sound tough with a laughable ‘screen name’.

    mikem (fd2aad)

  48. The killing of Terry Schiavo was one of the single worst state deeds that I have ever witnessed. I still cannot get over the shock almost a year later. Three observations:

    (1) With respect to the remarkable claim that Terry stated that she wouldn’t want to live in that condition, it simply does not take over seven years for such basic information to come out (if it is real, of course). Michael argued quite the contrary position during the years-long med mal action: He claimed that he needed millions to care for and rehabilitate Terry. Once he banked those damages, all of a sudden he remembers that she said she wanted to die? Bull. There is nothing credible about such self-serving and contradictory testimony.

    (2) No guy on some probate bench should have the power to take anyone’s life based on merely clear and convincing evidence. If the state is going to deprive anyone of life, that action must require a heightened showing of the patient’s will in the matter at the level of beyond a reasonable doubt. The very thought of some family court judge unilaterally issuing death sentences FREAKS ME OUT.

    (3) Finally, even if Terry did want to die, she certainly did not want to be starved/dehydrated to death over the course of weeks. If people want to kill the disabled, lethal injection or some other quick method is required. Torturing the defenseless to death on international television over the course of weeks is vicious. There is no other word for it. If Michael wanted her dead so badly, they should have been frank about what they were doing and given her at least the same humane treatment that death row offenders would receive.

    Thanks for letting me vent, albeit well after the fact. I am still numb from the realization that we as a nation could possibly do such a thing, much less proclaim it some form of moral and legal virtue. FD

    Federal Dog (43c7eb)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0982 secs.