Monday, November 28, 2005

Cynical to Support Schiavo?

Alice Marshall posts on the "cynicism of Tom Davis". In her contradicting post, she quotes Davis on abortion, and then brings up his support of helping "comatose Terri Schiavo". I find it simply disgusting that Ms.Marshall would call someone cynical for their support of Terri Schiavo. To me, regardless of religion and background we should as a Country have united behind a woman for which we did NOT KNOW without a reasonable doubt if she wished to live or die. That coupled with her parents willingness to take care of her, makes me find the entire situation in Florida repulsive. Intelligent debate on the matter is tolerable, but to call someone cynical for their support of Schiavo is simply irrational.


At 11/28/2005 06:10:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

Still upset over the Schiavo business??

Enlighten me, will you?? As a republican, you are presumably in favor of cutting taxes, and cutting government programs as well.

Do you have any idea how much it costs to keep brain-dead people alive?? Do you understand the economic ramifications of enacting a law that would do that??

I find it amusing how quickly the right is willing to abandon its fiscal ideals to jump behind a social issue that may energize the religious base. The fact that the social issue goes against their fiscal ideals doesn't present a problem to you guys, apparently.

At 11/28/2005 07:00:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...


If I had control over money, I would pay money to keep anyone alive.

It's disturbing to say otherwise.

At 11/28/2005 07:24:00 PM, Anonymous NOVA Scout said...

TC: it's both interesting and disturbing that Willis thinks pro-life fiscal conservatives would bail out on concern for human life if to sustain that life might cost money. That's a fairly warped view of our philosophy and ethics. I wonder how many more like him are out there. Scary.

At 11/28/2005 07:45:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

I didn't enter into the concept of her life, because that argument is pointless. She was braindead, her life was going nowhere, and it would have been a money drain to keep her alive.

Fortunately, there are more people like me out there than people like you.

At 11/28/2005 08:01:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Willis...see the thing is.

Do we not feed our young, and our old?

All she needed to remain alive was food, not a false heart, no false lungs, but food.

If we feed the young and old because they bring us joy, why not feed Terri Schiavo?

At 11/28/2005 08:20:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

I'm just opposed to federally funded life support for the braindead. Don't bring anything else into it.

At 11/28/2005 08:24:00 PM, Anonymous tooconservative said...

But there is more than that.

Federally funded? Terri Schiavo's parents would have paid DEARLY to allow their child to be allowed to live.

At 11/28/2005 08:42:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

That brings up another issue, of whether the parents or the husband have more authority. I don't really care about that or have an opinion, but the law in the books was followed.

That was the specific issue in this case, yes, but the overriding issue was federally funded life support for the braindead.

At 11/28/2005 08:54:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

no..the law was not followed.

"life, liberty"=the constitution.

and no the overriding issue was NOT federally funded life support, it had nothing to do with the real meaning behind Michael Schiavo.

Her husband, who was off having relations with another woman during the case, should not have had say simply because we do not know for SURE what she wanted.

She was treated like a piece of trash by her husband, something he could throw away. While to her parents she was still precious.

It is one of the saddest cases I have seen in American culture.

At 11/28/2005 09:39:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

Again, it is very curious how quickly you righty's abandon your fiscal conservatism when it comes to issues like this.

"A mother with 3 kids needs aid?? Tell her to pick herself up by the bootstraps, you have to earn your way in this country!!!"

"A braindead woman is going to die?? Lets move the earth to save her, because life is sacred!!!"

At 11/28/2005 11:25:00 PM, Blogger AWCheney said...

If I recall that incident correctly, wasn't that "fiscal responsibility" revolving around a trust fund which had been established by monies secured through the settlement of a lawsuit filed by Terri Schiavo's family over the malpractice which led to her coma? I believe it was, in fact, suggested at the time that her husband's primary concern was that there would be little left for him to inherit if her treatment (which he cut off) continued and she was allowed to die naturally. I may be wrong, of course.

At 11/28/2005 11:47:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

No you are correct.

Democrats have simply lost their minds.

If anyone thinks myself, or other Republicans would more rather save a few bucks, then save innocent lives, then they are very mistaken.

Yes, I would abandon fiscal conservatism to save Terri Schiavo's life. Yes, I would give all the money I could spare to have kept her alive.

There is no question.

People come before money.

During Hurricane Katrina, crazy liberals from PETA kept complaning that people were being saved BEFORE pets. Some actually wrote letters requesting dogs be rescued before humans.

This king of logic is mad. The problem is people do not respect life anymore, and are to easily willing to give it up.

At 11/28/2005 11:58:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

Well, I'm not one of those PETA folks. I eat meat of all types with vigor. I agree that, if as you contend, PETA requested pets be saved before humans (though I sincerely doubt that that was the actual request), that that is nutty and stupid.

Terri Schiavo was braindead. She was, in all sincerity, just a body without a brain. Keeping someone like that alive, at the expense of the government, is just as insane as those PETA folks you describe.

Now, apparently the money existed to keep her alive without using federal funds. Then the debate moves into an entirely new area, as to who has more authority over her life, the parents or the husband. According to law as interpreted, the husband had more authority. The law was followed correctly.

If a family wants to keep a braindead relative alive at their own expense, I have no problem with that. It's their choice. I think it is very fiscally irresponsible to do as many Republicans wanted though, to have the federal government intervene and spend money to keep alive a woman who was basically dead already. It's just stupid.

I'm not going to argue whether the husband or the parents had decision making power. I don't care really, but am glad that the law on the books was followed.

The whole debate over Schiavo was stupid, and I wish you republicans would value life THAT IS ACTUALLY ALIVE more than argue over the bodies of the braindead.

At 11/29/2005 12:08:00 AM, Blogger AWCheney said...

I believe you missed the point Willis: The money for her (Schiavo) care was HER money (lawsuit settlement) didn't come out of YOUR pocket. Your point is moot.

At 11/29/2005 12:33:00 AM, Blogger Willis said...

I'm not arguing her case here, I'm arguing a philosophical point.

At 11/29/2005 12:47:00 AM, Blogger AWCheney said...

Then, perhaps, you are using the wrong example to make your point?

At 11/29/2005 12:53:00 AM, Blogger Willis said...

I'm not aware of another example where thousands of people argued for the government to save the "life" of a braindead person.

At 11/29/2005 12:56:00 AM, Blogger AWCheney said...

Then, as I said, your point is moot.

At 11/29/2005 01:02:00 AM, Blogger too conservative said...

According to many liberals, every arguement against abortion is sometimes fighting to save a scientifically "braindead" baby.

Schiavo deserved to live, end of story.

At 11/29/2005 01:26:00 AM, Blogger Willis said...

There are easier arguments to make in favor of abortion than arguing that the fetus is braindead. So, I won't be arguing that. Nice try though.

Nobody "deserves" anything. But if you want to go that route, fine. She was given a chance to live, but was incapable of feeding herself without a machine to do it for her. So, she died.

End of story.

At 11/29/2005 10:04:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whatchutalkin'bout, Willis???

At 11/29/2005 06:09:00 PM, Blogger neocon22 said...

willis: the law in the boooks was NOT followed in this case. there are only two ways in which someone can be left to die: 1)with a clear LEGAL DIRECTIVE instructing the medical professionals of their intentions to only take treatment so far. The following must be in conjuction with #1:2)the person must be brain dead.

Also, the reviews of the case by the other judges were PROCEDURAL, not substantive. This simply means that they were judging whether or not the case had been carried out with the correct procedure, without any examination of the actual case.

Finally, the conflicting testimonies by seperate doctors about whether or not Terri was actually brain dead is the perfect example of why she should not have been starved to death. When there is conflict over something as serious as life and death, it is most prudent to CHOOSE LIFE.

This is just sick "She was braindead, her life was going nowhere, and it would have been a money drain to keep her alive" (Willis). Was Terri's life any less valuable than yours?

At 11/29/2005 07:13:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

There wasn't any real debate over whether she was braindead. Yes, she had some fluttering eye movements, but lets be real. She was braindead, and had been for over a decade.

And as to your final comment, she wasn't really alive. She was a pod, a body without a mind.

Again, why not worry about the lives of those who are currently alive, rather than obsessing over lady without a brain??

At 11/30/2005 09:36:00 AM, Anonymous Sheila said...

Getting back to the original topic (Rep Tom Davis and Life issues), I believe that Rep Davis may have supported Terri Schiavo because he spent time talking with her brother Bobby last year at the RNC convention. I brought Bobby to New York as my guest, and he attended most of the VA delegation events up there. At one of the breakfasts I was able to introduce Bobby to both Rep Davis and his wife, and they spoke for several minutes about the issues surrounding Terri's case.

At 11/30/2005 09:54:00 PM, Blogger neocon22 said...

But even if she was braindead, which is still being debated, this does not satisfy the legal requirements for letting her starve to death. this must happen in conjunction with a legal directive. the law of the books was not followed.

sheila: what did cong davis say?


Post a Comment

<< Home