Schiavo autopsy finds no sign of trauma

[Guest charlie]

I don't approve of adultery myself but keep in mind Terri collapsed years before her husband took up with the mother of his children. I think both of his children were born since 2000. Without artificial life-support Terri would have died naturally early on, many years ago.

I'm not against prolonging life in many instances; however, there comes a time when it's wrong to continue on. In my mind the same thing would have applied if it had been Michael Shiavo who'd been laying there for 15 years and Terri had two children.

This was not a right-to-die suicide issue. I'm against legalizing suicide; slippery slope. People don't need a law to commit suicide but this case did not fall into that category at all.

Did anyone else find it ironic that Randall Terry was there during this whole "show"? Didn't Randall Terry leave his perfectly healthy wife of two decades a few years back - for a sweet young thing? http://www.sptimes.com/2005/03/29/news_pf/...hindlers_.shtml

Edited June 16, 2005 by charlie

[Kabowd]

Previous evidence (or lack thereof) about abuse aside....it's still doesn't negate the fact that he starved his wife to death. If that's not abuse I don't know what is.

Starving to death is not "dying the natural way".

[ayin jade]

The same thing is happening with the stem-cell research issue.  If stem-cell research had of had some potential to have cured Terri Shiavo I venture to say none of us would have ever even heard of her;  the religious right (wrong) wouldn't have touched this with a 10 foot pole.  It's like they've lost all common sense and gotten issues of life and death backwards lately.....it's weird.

A bit presumptious of you Charlie. If stem cell research could have aided Terri, then I would still say stem cell research is wrong. You cant kill babies to obtain stem cells for research to save anyone's life. Using the stem cells from aborted fetuses is still wrong. It encourages a belief that abortion is good. It is condoning murder of fetuses.

[Sojc]

The same thing is happening with the stem-cell research issue.

Edited June 16, 2005 by Sojc

[Cerran]

I disagree. First and foremost it is the court's obligation to examine the fact of each case and determine the appropriate course of action. It is not the responsibility of the court to decide life or death on hearsay evidence, which is what this issue ultimately boils down to.

It isn't the role of the court to make these decisions at all. It is the person's legal guardian's decision in the case the person cannot consent themselves. Which is what happened. Since the court was asked by Terri's parents to decide (which never should have happened since they were not her legal guardians) , they ended up unhappy with the result and tried to bully the court into changing their decision.

Michael Schiavo

[ayin jade]

The same thing is happening with the stem-cell research issue.

[Sojc]

The same thing is happening with the stem-cell research issue.

Edited June 16, 2005 by Sojc

[Guest charlie]

What's next? Are we gonna arrest teen-age boys for masturbating and wasting all those live human sperm cells? Are birth-control pills gonna be made illegal? (I can see that one coming).

It's acceptable to keep a woman's dead body alive by artificial life support indefinitely and it's acceptable to dispose of invitro petri dish eggs, it's acceptable to illegally start a war that kills over 100,000 people but saving lives and easing the pain of the sick is unacceptable.

I think we're in the days of calling wrong right and right wrong.

I'm pro-life, I care about unborn babies and I care about those who have been born; most people imo that call themselves pro-life are NOT......they're just pro-birth.....there's a big difference. It's absurd to compare cells created in a petrie dish less than two weeks old to a child in a cancer ward or a child with diabetes or a middle-age woman walking with a cane cause she's got MS....all hoping and praying for a cure. It's a sin against mankind to not use this....it's a gift from God imo.

So are fertility treatments, which Bush and many pro-lifers support, not also murder?

Either ban both or condone both I say. I do not like hypocrisy, both can be said to be used to support life.

Exactly.

Back to Terri Shiavo, I agree completely with Cerran's last post.

No-one answered this question that I asked way back......do any of you think Judge Greer's former Baptist Church will apologize to him and invite him back? I think it would be the right thing to do; what are your thoughts?

[Kabowd]

Starving to death is not "dying the natural way".

It is when the person cannot feed themselves and has no chance of ever recovering, and no way to communicate their wishes. More than 50% of her brain was just gone.

1. Infants can't feed themselves, numerous invalids in nursing homes cannot feed themselves...should we just stop feeding them too?

2. Who determines when there is "no chance" of recovery? Who determines the definition of "no chance"? Who determines the definition of "recovery"?

And regarding stems cells...

Everyone has an unknown amount of stem cells (adult stem cells) that can be retrieved without harm or injury. Contrary to what advocates for embryonic stem cell research want us to believe, the potential advantages and "cures" discovered by these cells is entirely speculative, because embryonic stem cells have never been successfully used in clinical experiments with human patients.

However adult stem cells and stem cells from cord blood are currently being used to treat at least 74 diseases.

I think stem cell research is a good thing and could lead to potential cures and treatments...but I am completely opposed to embryonic stem cell research. From what I've read and how it's been explained to me...scientifically there is absolutely no evidence showing that embryonic stem cells are in any way superior to cord blood stem cells or adult stem cells.

[Guest charlie]

Tess - Are you also opposed to all envitro fertilization?