Pat Buchannon, Hit.......

the nail right on the damn head with this one.

I wonder, based on the precident set by the courts regarding the conviction of Jack Kevorkian, how they can justify starving to death a severely brain damaged woman?

I particularly like the hypocrisy of the ACLU. What a bunch of left wing shitbirds.

April 1, 2005
The Execution of Terri Schiavo
By Pat Buchanan

Terri Schiavo is dead. She did not die a natural death, unless you believe a court order to cut off food and water to a disabled woman until she dies of starvation and thirst is natural.

No, Terri Schiavo was executed by the state of Florida. Her crime? She was so mentally disabled as to be unworthy of life in the judgment of Judge George Greer. The execution was carried out at Woodside Hospice. An autopsy will reveal that Terri’s vital organs shut down for lack of food and water. She did not die of the brain damage she suffered 15 years ago. She was put to death. We have crossed a watershed in America.

Michael Schiavo’s argument that Greer found compelling was that this is what Terri wanted and she had told him so, though Michael never mentioned this until eight years after she was disabled.

Did Terri, at 26, really tell the man to whom she swore lifelong fidelity to find a way to kill her if she became handicapped? Is that what she had in mind when they pledged to stand by each other “in sickness and in health, 'til death do us part”?

Was Terri that different from her mom, dad, brother and sister, who fought with all they had to keep her alive so they could take care of her for all the years she had left? Why, one wonders, did this severely handicapped woman fight for two weeks against the dying of the light?

America is a great country because she is good country, and if ever she ceases to be good, she will cease to be great, Alexis de Toqueville is quoted as saying. Are we that America today? Are we the same kind of people? Would the country we grew up in have done this to a disabled woman?

Hubert Humphrey, a passionate liberal, once said, “The moral test of government is how (it) treats those who are in the dawn of life … those who are in the twilight of life … and those who are in the shadows of life.”

In America, three in 10 in the dawn of life never see the light of day. They are destroyed in the womb because their very existence embarrasses or would encumber their parents. In the twilight of life, we have begun to provide our elderly ill with the means of assisted suicide. In Europe, euthanasia has become involuntary in some nursing homes. In the shadows of life – the sick, the needy, the handicapped – there is now in this land we once called “God’s country” a chance the state will put you to death.

The motivations of the good folks praying for Terri outside the hospice one can understand. The motives of her parents one can understand. Even the motives of Michael Schiavo one can understand. He wants to be rid of Terri to start a new life with his new family.

What is inexplicable is why he did not get a divorce and let her go. What is inexplicable is the behavior of the media talking heads, who seemed so desperately anxious that the judge’s ruling not be reversed and that Terri die. Why were they so pro-death?

One must not interfere in a family decision, they say. But these are the same folks who always demand interference if a father takes a belt to discipline his 14-year-old delinquent son.

This is what Terri would have wanted, they say. We have no right to interfere. But what Terri would have wanted is unclear and in dispute. And if there is disagreement, why not come down on the side of life? Why come down on the side of death, which is final and forever? Why were so many progressives on the side of death for Terri Schiavo?

Conservatives are hypocrites, they charge. The Right opposes judicial activism and preaches states’ rights. But in Terri’s case, the Right clamored for judicial activism and rejected states’ rights.

But this is absurd. The judicial activist in Terri’s case is Greer, who sentenced a brain-damaged woman to death by starvation and dehydration. If this is not judicial activism, in violation of a citizen’s right to life, due process of law, and not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, what is?

And what is there left to say about that angel of death, the American Civil Liberties Union? As Nat Hentoff writes, the ACLU, “which would be passionately criticizing state court decisions and demanding due process if Terri were a convict on death row, has shamefully served as co-counsel for her husband, Michael Schiavo, in his insistent desire to have her die.”

But whose rights were in mortal peril here? Why was the ACLU not at the door of that hospice, denouncing Greer the way it would be at the door of a penitentiary denouncing Jeb Bush, if the ACLU even suspected an innocent man was being put to death?

We have turned a sad page in the history of America’s decline.

bigflamer:

Great post, so very true!

bigflamer:

No offense buddy, but this wasn’t such a great article by Buchannon. This is more grandstanding like we talked about in the other thread. The woman wasn’t executed, she was let go. Personally, I think it’s silly that we let her body starve, and I think that when we decided to withdraw the tube we should have just put her down like an ailing horse, but that’s just me.

The husband tried some pretty radical shit over the years to try to rehab his wife. There was no response. Because she was dead. And I mean “dead” in the sense that she exerted the consciousness of a bag of Doritos “dead”. The fact that a body can live on autonomously (heart beats, lungs breathe) when it has an intact brainstem is very similar to the way that a chicken runs around for an hour after you chop its head off with an axe. A cockroach can live on for a week without its head. A decapitated cockroach dies due to starvation, and I’m sure that if we were motivated, we could find a scientist who could keep a cockroach alive without its head for a very long time if we had a tiny little feeding tube or some shit like that to stick in its severed neck.

This is simple biology, and talking heads like Buchannon take advantage of the “grey areas” in people’s minds to score political points with folks like you and ZEB. The only tragedy in this whole mess that I see is that it went on for so long. And I guess I should repeat that I think it’s a shame that we as a state down here didn’t have the balls to just end it quickly after it was decided to let her body finally die. Oh well.

Well Buchanan and Lothario’s points are both good but the real question I ask is this… What was the point of letting her die? What did anyone gain from it? If someone wants to take care of their vegatative child why can’t we just let them hold onto that?

If you don’t think she’s suffering then there’s no point in letting her die, after all she feels nothing… and it keeps her family happy.

If you think she IS suffering then that must mean that she’s conscious and there’s hope for her to snap out of it…

I don’t think this is really the judges faults, for the most part they upheld custody laws…

After reading the other posts and now this one, it doesn’t surprise me that very little gets done in government other than politicking and bickering along party lines. And tallking heads are probably the most useless creatures of all. They just talk, and opinions are like assholes - everyone has one and they all stink. How about doing soemthing? Don’t like a result? Then propose some new legislation. But be careful what you wish for. Don’t like judicial activism? Then you better make sure your legislation is really, really specific, and covers every possible contingency that may arise. See, the judicial system has this annoying task of actually resolving disputes. Judges can’t just sit around and bullshit on the Internet. So, if a case comes before a judge that presents a fact situation not addressed by a statute, the judge can’t just say, “Well gee whiz folks, I have no idea what to do, so why don’t we just forget about this little dispute. What do you say?” Nope, they actual have to try and interpret what the law means. This problem is compounded by the fact that many statutes are poorly drafted and use ambiguous language. Unfortunately, the wonderful people we elect to our legislatures are not perfect either, and what seems to make sense during a late night drafting session becomes gibberish when trying to apply it in that annoying place called the real world. And here’s another little thing to think about - it may help if you knew what the old laws said so you don’t make the same mistakes. And it would be really nice if you had some experience actually applying these laws so that you understood the various possible scenarios that might arise.

So go ahead - draft up such a law. Can’t do it? Don’t want to do it? Want to do it but don’t really have enough experience do it? Then you got no business complaining.

You guys had better avoid Pat’s views on foreign policy, since they’ll give most of you authoritian chickenhawks a hemorrhage. Buchanon tends to agree with “nutcases” such as Harry Browne and other prominent libertarians/traditional conservatives in that it isn’t the place of the United States to run around the world dictating the policies of other nations and intimidating anyone who doesn’t feed at it’s trough, creating millions of new enemies in the process.

Well, woops - look what I just started. Commence barrage of vicious ad hominem attacks against Pat Buchanon (and myself) in three…

Al: I will give you a dollar if you manage to make a post on the political forum without mentioning Harry Browne or Stalin or how everyone is ignorant except for you. I mean it. PM me when you pull it off (in case I miss the post), and I will mail you the dollar.

Good Luck.

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Al: I will give you a dollar if you manage to make a post on the political forum without mentioning Harry Browne or Stalin or how everyone is ignorant except for you. I mean it. PM me when you pull it off (in case I miss the post), and I will mail you the dollar.

Good Luck.[/quote]

AL:

I won’t give you a dollar, but why don’t you give the Harry Browne thing a rest…it’s getting really old.

I thought this thread was gonna be Pat Buchannon hit…with salad dressing, which happended the other day…

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Al: I will give you a dollar if you manage to make a post on the political forum without mentioning Harry Browne or Stalin or how everyone is ignorant except for you. I mean it. PM me when you pull it off (in case I miss the post), and I will mail you the dollar.

Good Luck.[/quote]

I’d rather be right than have a dollar, any day of the week. But today, it looks like I can have both:

http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do;jsessionid=0FE103BF76FF89F16BD89E29D3F249E5.titan?id=592258

Al Shades hit the nail on the head with Pat Buchanon’s foreign policy, just like Pat got hit in the head with salad dressing.

Pat makes some good points on occasion, but he is often far too simplistic. His weakest area is foreign policy.

I actually believe that Terri Schiavos should have had an assisted suicide if her FAMILY would have agreed.

The fact that her real family wanted her to live and her dirtbag husband wanted her killed really bothers me.

Just proves that its all in the way a question is asked when it comes to polls.

Zogby Poll: Americans Not in Favor of Starving Terri Schiavo
Polls leading up to the death of Terri Schiavo made it appear Americans had formed a consensus in favor of ending her life. However, a new Zogby poll with fairer questions shows the nation clearly supporting Terri and her parents and wanting to protect the lives of other disabled patients.

The Zogby poll found that, if a person becomes incapacitated and has not expressed their preference for medical treatment, as in Terri’s case, 43 percent say “the law presume that the person wants to live, even if the person is receiving food and water through a tube” while just 30 percent disagree.

Another Zogby question his directly on Terri’s circumstances.

“If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water,” the poll asked.

A whopping 79 percent said the patient should not have food and water taken away while just 9 percent said yes.

“From the very start of this debate, Americans have sat on one of two sides,” Concerned Women for America’s Lanier Swann said in response to the poll. One side “believes Terri’s life has worth and purpose, and the side who saw Michael Schiavo’s actions as merciful, and appropriate.”

More than three-fourths of Americans agreed, Swann said, “because a person is disabled, that patient should never be denied food and water.”

The poll also lent support to members of Congress to who passed legislation seeking to prevent Terri’s starvation death and help her parents take their lawsuit to federal courts.

“When there is conflicting evidence on whether or not a patient would want to be on a feeding tube, should elected officials order that a feeding tube be removed or should they order that it remain in place,” respondents were asked.

Some 18 percent said the feeding tube should be removed and 42 percent said it should remain in place.

Swann said her group would encourage Congress to adopt legislation that would federal courts to review cases when the medical treatment desire of individuals is not known and the patient’s family has a dispute over the care.

“According to these poll results, many Americans do in fact agree with what we’re trying to accomplish,” she said.

The poll found that 49 percent of Americans believe there should be exceptions to the right of a spouse to act as a guardian for an incapacitated spouse. Only 39 percent disagreed.

When asked directly about Terri’s case and told the her estranged husband Michael “has had a girlfriend for 10 years and has two children with her” 56 percent of Americans believed guardianship should have been turned over to Terri’s parents while 37 percent disagreed.

Well, without getting into the morass of this particular issue… there is the following question.

Why is it right to use artificial means to keep us alive, when before these inventions dying of various conditions would have been considered natural?

I mean, isn’t it playing god to extend a life with advanced technology also?

Just an honest question. Are we compelled to spare no expense and use every iota of technology for every person on the planet? Why some and not others – because we ARE letting plenty die in other countries when cheap medicine might save them.

Strange.

I thought this was going to be a new workout program in cooperation with Ellington Darden… :frowning:

Vroom, I’m going to have to echo your sentiments.

vroom: I just updated my calendar. I actually agree with you for once! I posted in the other thread that we should have taken Terri’s feeding tube out and given it to some starving Africans who would have appreciated it.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Well, without getting into the morass of this particular issue… there is the following question.

Why is it right to use artificial means to keep us alive, when before these inventions dying of various conditions would have been considered natural?

I mean, isn’t it playing god to extend a life with advanced technology also?

Just an honest question. Are we compelled to spare no expense and use every iota of technology for every person on the planet? Why some and not others – because we ARE letting plenty die in other countries when cheap medicine might save them.

Strange.[/quote]

Why lift weights and take supplements?
Isn’t that an artificial way to be strong and fit?

Actually you make a good point. At some point 50% of our population will be on life support and the other 50% will have to take care of them.

It will be interesting.

[quote]100meters wrote:
I thought this thread was gonna be Pat Buchannon hit…with salad dressing, which happended the other day…[/quote]

Amazingly, I was thinking the same thing…

I don’t think libertarians are too thrilled with Buchanan’s ideas on free trade, borders, etc.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I don’t think libertarians are too thrilled with Buchanan’s ideas on free trade, borders, etc.[/quote]

You’re right about that.