If you want to build a Nazi regime, just do what the Nazis did! In this case, it is the medical and legal acceptance of euthanasia for the mentally handicapped ... the first major step Hitler took on the slippery slope to the Holocaust. I'm too upset about this to make any comment, so I'll just let the story speak for itself.

Quote:

---

A chilling precedent
EUTHANASIA: The forced starvation of Terri Schiavo may be part of a larger effort to dehumanize the severely disabled
By Bob Jones - Oct. 25, 2003 Volume 18 Number 41
http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/10-25-03/national_4.asp

AFTER ALL THE YEARS, ALL THE fighting, all the bitter recriminations, there were remarkably few tears on Oct. 15 when Terri Schiavo finally had her feeding tube removed. Maybe the crowd of 80 or so gathered outside the hospice facility in western Florida were too angry to cry, or too numb.

For her part, Carla Sauer was just too tired. "I've been pulling for Terri since 1995," she said as she sank uncertainly onto a three-legged stool to rest the sandal-clad feet she'd been standing on for five hours. "I still can't believe it's come to this."

"This," apparently, is the end of the line in the long fight to keep Ms. Schiavo alive. A Florida judge on Oct. 14 refused two final appeals from her parents, clearing the way for the removal of the feeding tube that's kept her alive for a half-dozen years. Without the tube, the 39-year-old will slowly starve to death. It should take about 14 days.

That's precisely the outcome her husband, Michael, has been pushing for. Claiming that Terri has been a vegetable since she collapsed after a heart attack in 1990, Mr. Schiavo says he is simply honoring a request made by his young bride: That he not allow doctors to prolong her life through artificial means.

Terri's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, doubt she ever made such a request. But even if she did, they argue that a feeding tube is not the same as artificial life support. Her vital organs function on their own, she smiles and laughs at the sound of her loved ones' voices, and she has no terminal illness that threatens her life. If she simply has someone who cares enough to feed her, she could live for another 50 years—a condition not terribly different from that of thousands of other severely disabled persons.

"She's not a vegetable," Ms. Sauer insisted as she rested her tired feet. "She knows voices, she responds. She can follow commands, and she tries to communicate by blinking her eyelids 'yes' and 'no.'" And then there's the most important detail of all: "We used to feed her with a spoon, and she swallowed on her own."

That was seven years ago, when Ms. Sauer was a nurse at a rehab facility in Largo, Fla. At that time, Ms. Schiavo was getting physical therapy and full-time attention from skilled nurses. But the facility charged $4,000 a month, as Ms. Sauer recalls, and Mr. Schiavo soon chose to discontinue his wife's therapy and move her into the much cheaper hospice system. She's languished there for six years, tethered to a feeding tube while a fierce legal battle swirled around her.

The Schindlers argued that they should be named as Terri's guardians, in part because Mr. Schiavo now has a new girlfriend and a young child. Just because he's ready to move on with his life, they said, he should not be allowed to end Terri's. When a series of judges sided with Mr. Schiavo, the Schindlers appealed to the court of public opinion: They smuggled a video camera into their daughter's room—against a judge's orders—to show the world she could still laugh and smile and respond to affection.

With Terri now dying slowly, that video may be the Schindlers' final memory of their daughter. Rather than watching by her bedside, they are parked in a camper across the street. Bob Schindler has been charged with contempt of court, and he and his wife cannot visit their daughter without Mr. Schiavo's permission—or his lawyer.

The family tragedy, as painful as it is to watch, is only a part of a larger picture. Advocates for the disabled fear that Terri Schiavo's death could set a chilling precedent. "This is deplorable," Joni Eareckson Tada told WORLD in the midst of a whirlwind of press conferences and rallies. "What's happening here is just a part of a larger effort to class persons with severe cognitive disabilities as non-persons. Terri is not brain dead, she's not in a coma, she's not terminally ill. We have people who attend our weekend retreats who are more severely disabled. Yet the courts have washed their hands of this. Medical personnel are forbidden to deliver any food or water. She's being denied her right to humane treatment under state law.

"This case is a watershed for people with disabilities," Mrs. Tada said. "Removal of the feeding tube means you are promoting active euthanasia. As a quadriplegic woman, that's a frightening precedent."
==============================================
Disabled Woman Would Cry 'Help Me,' Caregivers Claim
By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Congressional Bureau Chief
September 03, 2003
http://www.cnsnews.com/Culture/Archive/200309/CUL20030903b.html

==============================
STARVATION DAY 5
Terri Schiavo denied Last Rites
Catholic monsignor forbidden to put crumb of holy wafer in dying woman's mouth
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35156

By Sarah Foster
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

Saying she was only following court and doctor's orders, an attorney for Michael Schiavo yesterday would not allow a revered Roman Catholic priest to administer Holy Communion to brain-disabled Terri Schindler-Schiavo, who is being slowly starved to death following the judge-ordered removal of her life-sustaining feeding tube on Wednesday.

Attorney Deborah Bushnell told Monsignor Thaddeus Malanowski, who has been Terri's spiritual provider for three years, that ''because of court order and doctor's orders, you can't put anything in her mouth,'' not even a morsel of moistened communion wafer.

Malanowski recounted the bizarre incident for WorldNetDaily. ''I felt that time was of the essence at this point and made a decision that because she is not going to live much longer, I might not have another opportunity to give her Holy Communion,'' he said.

As he had done almost every Saturday for over three years, the priest accompanied Terri's parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, to the Hospice of the Florida Sun Coast in Pinellas Park, Fla, where she has been a patient since April 2000. Because so little time is left for the family to be with Terri, her brother Bobby and sister, Suzanne, were there as well.

Plus there were two police officers in the room and a woman who was said to be Schiavo's ''representative.''

Malanowski spoke with Bushnell outside the room, explaining that he wanted to administer the Sacrament of Annointing of the Sick or the Viaticum, the last communion for a Catholic before death. Bushnell contacted Schiavo by phone to make certain he would allow it, and he gave his permission.

Wanting to make it a prayer service, the priest invited the family into the room to share the sacrament with Terri, but Bushnell demanded to know what the priest was going to so.

Malanowski explained he was going to give her: ''a small, tiny particle of the consecrated Host. And I'll moisten my index finger [in water] to make sure the Host will stick to it and that it will stick to her tongue.''

Bushnell said he couldn't do that, but suggested he ''take the Host, touch her lips with it, and you consume it.''

Malanowski protested, ''I'm not here for that. I am here to bring her communion, not me. I went to communion this morning. This is communion for her.''

Contacted by telephone, the priest of the local parish told Bushnell there was an ''alternative'' called ''spiritual communion'' for people who can't receive communion - ''She receives the Lord in her heart.''

''I told attorney Bushnell, I've been doing that for over three years,'' Malanowski exclaimed. ''Every Saturday I give her spiritual communion, and I want her to receive communion in the mouth. She hasn't received communion for 13 or 14 years. She's dying. She's on her deathbed, and with dying people - whether it is a male or female Catholic - I'm obligated to take care of their religious and spiritual needs when they're dying. They get absolution, Holy Communion, and Annointing of the Sick.''

Malanowski argued the matter with the parish priest, but realized he was ''following the party line about spiritual communion.''

''I told him I'd been doing that for two-and-a-half years - and he said, 'Well, the doctors say you cannot put anything in her mouth.'''

Malanowski said he would do it, ''because she has the constitutional right to follow her religious beliefs, she has the right to receive communion and I have the obligation as a priest to give her communion. This will be perhaps the last time in her life on earth that she receives communion.''

But the priest didn't agree. ''I sensed that, because he was saying, 'Otherwise you can't do it. If the court-order says so and the doctors say so, you can't do it.'''

Unwilling to argue points of theology and constitutional issues on the phone, Malanowski tried Bushnell again, but she was adamant. ''She wouldn't let me do it.''

There were two police officers, and he asked them, ''What if I go in there now and give her communion?'' And they said, ''We will deny you access to her. You will not be able to put it in her mouth.''

At that point Bobby and Suzanne, said, ''Father, let's go.''

And they did. While Bushnell was talking with the priest, they had had a prayer service and the ''spiritual communion'' - but many Catholics do not regard that as the same as communion with a consecrated host.

Outside the hospice a scheduled press conference was about to begin, and Malanowski found himself in front of the TV cameras.

''I told them [the media] the whole story, that she was denied her religious privileges and I was denied the right to take care of her religious needs,'' he said. ''I told them, that the attorney had some suggestion about me touching Terri's lips with the wafer, and then I was supposed to consume it. What does she know about Catholic ritual or rites?''

As WorldNetDaily reported, the Schindlers had been fighting their son-in-law for 10 years over the lack of care and therapy Schiavo as her guardian provided for their daughter, who suffered massive brain damage when she collapsed at her home 13 years ago under mysterious circumstances at the age of 26.

The ongoing dispute escalated five years ago when Schiavo petitioned the court for permission to end his wife's life by removing her feeding tube, insisting she is in a ''persistent vegetative state'' and had told him years before she would not want to be maintained ''by tubes'' and ''artificial means'' Although Terri breathes on her on and maintains her own blood pressure, she requires a simple tube into her abdomen to her stomach for nourishment and hydration.

The Schindlers fought tenaciously to keep their daughter and the case alive in the courts, but they have been basically blocked at every turn in particular by probate judge George Greer, of the Pinellas County Circuit Court, who has had charge of the case almost from the beginning. When the seven-member Florida Supreme Court in August turned down a petition to review the case, the way was clear for Schiavo to starve his wife to death.

On Sept. 17, Greer scheduled Oct. 15 as the day Terri's feeding tube would be removed. At the same time, in separate rulings, he denied any rehabilitation for the disabled woman or a chance to be spoon-fed.

Information on Terri's fight for life is posted on the family's website.
http://www.terrisfight.org

Previous stories:

Jeb Bush 'fails' Terri
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35152

=========================================================
SEE DOWNLOADS - YOU'LL CRY!
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/terri.htm

---

Actually I do have a comment to make: if they get away with this, someone needs to euthanize that murdering "husband" and the rotten "judge" who has fought alongside him for over a decade to allow him to starve his disabled wife to death so he can inherit her money.

And no, that's not a threat - just wishful thinking. I'm not sure when I've ever been so angry, or so thoroughly disgusted with the Amerikan "legal" system. It's all about lies and money, and "justice" has nothing to do with it. Pah!

Love,
Greg

Kitty

Sorry for expressing my outrage over this so harshly, but I do feel outraged. This is so clearly a travesty of justice that anyone with a functioning conscience can see it in an instant, yet these self-serving a**holes are more concerned for their own pocketbooks (in the case of the husband) and their own pet political axes to grind (in the case of the the medical "experts" who are strong advocates of the so-called "right-to-die" movement, whose opinions are the only ones admitted by the judge's arbitrary rulings in this case.)

This is not about the "right to die," it's about the legal and medical profession's "right to kill" whoever they deem unfit for life. Even if one fully supports the removal of artificial life support from brain-dead coma patients, Terri OBVIOUSLY does not fall into that category. And even if there were a serious question about whether or not she did, NO honest person can argue that the person with a vested financial interest in her death ... her husband, who will inherit the money awarded to her in a lawsuit TO PROVIDE FOR HER CARE AND REHABILITATION ... should be the "guardian" with the sole discretionary power to make that decision "on her behalf." That's such a painfully obvious conflict of interest that even a two year old could smell the rat.

Kitty, I do hope you weren't offended by my "Germanization" of the spelling of America ... that wasn't intended to draw a parallel to anything German, but rather to Nazism, which aggressively promoted precisely this kind of "bio-ethics" leading directly to some of the worst horrors ever perpetrated by any government against humanity.

I am among the thousands of folks who have written to Governor Bush imploring that he step in to prevent this travesty of justice - and I urge everyone here to do the same, contact info for him and the relevant Federal officials who might have some influence is included in the links above - but as he has taken no action despite a widespread public outcry as Terri enters her fourth day of state-sponsored execution by starvation, it appears he has chosen to allow this despicable murder to continue. No great surprise, his family have been big supporters of the "eugenics" and "utilitarian bioethics" movements for generations.

Love,
Greg

They kill murderers on Death Row more humanely than her.


Outrage is understandable, Greg. I'm more concerned about those it doesn't outrage.
They are discriminating, murdering and taking advantage of a person who cannot defend herself properly....
that is just blatantly cruel and sick.

Lisa

I don't understand what gave the courts the right to decide if Terri should live or die. If her parents are willing to take care of her and if all she needs is a feeding-tube, how does her husband's desire to kill her over-ride all that? Why don't her parents have a say in the matter?

Hi Greg,
no offense taken at all! In fact, you even spelled it "Ameri k a the way we do it here. My came from sth. else... I was a premature baby, you know, born two months earlier than I was due to be born. It happened in mid-December 1976, rather than being some kind of a Valentine present to my parents in Feb '77. The doctor's told them they did not have much hope for me to survive. In fact they thought I'd die within hours. I didn't. But when they (weeks later) thought I was out of the woods, there was another critical night, when I, for whatever reason, stopped breathing. They managed to save my life, but my parents were told I'd be severely affected, physically and mentally, needing constant care for the rest of my life. Well, and look at me now: I'm physically handicapped, yes (I use two sticks for walking in the flat and a wheelie at the university and outside (I'm quicker with that and can transport things easier than with hands on the sticks. I was about five years when I learned to eat all by myself, and it took me ages to learn how to put my clothes on and off- but I did. And I did that with the help of my whole family (thanks Papa for all those hours of physical exercise you helped me with- remember the first time when I held a pencil and it did not fall down like again and again before? Thanks Mama for singing together and for always being there when I woke up after another surgery. Thanks Granny for the countless books you read to me and for caring and for never giving up on your oldest grandchild. Thanks G, for always holding me when I tried to make the first steps with this sticks at age eight. Thanks for the children in kindergarten and school that you accepted me (even though some of your parents didn't want me to see at your birthdays) and thanks to my first and second and third boyfriend (number three I'm being together with since July 1999) that you saw the person and the woman in me (wheelie or no wheelie). Thanks for everyone (including God(s?), guardian angels, power animals or whatever) to help me live. It was because of you that a tiny girl could survive and beat every medical prognosis ever made on her in former days. And the woman this girl has turned into does here and now openly and publicly express not only a heartfelt thanks, but also a promise to give back some of the hope and help I received. I don't have much of a clue what I'm in this world for, what I was saved for, but one thing I know for certain: Medical analysis and prognosis is not always what it seems. And when I felt shocked, confused and angry (which I did when I had read this) this was not about you, Greg. It was just my imagination of what might have happened to me as an infant or what may happen to others being unable to help themselves on daily living things on their own if people don't care for one another.

Kitty

Suchi it's because in most states the husband, not the parents, is considered the legal "next of kin" in situations when a person loses their ability to make decisions on their own behalf. As a result, his decisions are "legally" considered to be her own decisions ... he is presumed to be acting in her own behalf, and neither parents nor anyone else has the legal right to override those decisions. Normally it would be a simple matter to have a legal guardian replaced by court order if it were shown that he was not acting in her best interests, but because of the money and the political interests involved here, the judge has "sided" with the husband against her family, and has adamantly refused to allow any testimony that contradicts the husband's assertion that she is in a "persistent vegetative state," although there are MANY experts who have publicly challenged it. In fact, it is probable that she doesn't even NEED the feeding tube, and could be spoon-fed by anyone who cared enough to do it, but the husband has prohibited that, and the judge has enforced his decision.

Love,
Greg

Quote:

---

Suchi it's because in most states the husband, not the parents, is considered the legal "next of kin" in situations when a person loses their ability to make decisions on their own behalf. As a result, his decisions are "legally" considered to be her own decisions ... he is presumed to be acting in her own behalf, and neither parents nor anyone else has the legal right to override those decisions.

---

That is such an illogical rule for this particular case. When it comes to her right to live, anything that upholds this right should override any legal definition of next of kin. IMHO.

I feel truly sorry for her parents and I can't even begin to imagine the ordeal she is going through. If she still has the ability to feel and think, then I wonder what must be going on in her mind. Can you imagine the helplessness she must feel? Nobody should ever have to feel that way.

Kitty, I understand what you are trying to say. Everyone deserves a chance.

Thanks Kitty that's a very inspiring story of yours!

Yes, that's exactly what's missing in this case, is any shred of human care and compassion on the part of those with her legal fate in their hands. To her husband, she is just an obstacle in the way of inheriting her money and marrying the woman he is currently living with, and to the judge and his favored medical experts she is just a "vegetable," a throwaway life of no use or value to be disposed of at the convenience of those in charge of her. The tragic and maddening thing about it is that there ARE those who love and care for her, who would only too happily give her affection, support and active rehabilitation efforts, but they are forcibly prevented by the legal system from having anything to do with her.

Love,
Greg

Now, are people made for the laws or laws made for the people? I can only shake my head in disbelief.
And oh my God- the parents... and her sister and brother...
Now, come on, say this nightmare isn't true!Plus Terri herself... She must feel like a thing, instead of a person. Greg, can't anyone try impeachment on this judge? Accuse him himself- plus that "husband"?

KItty

Kitty,

Thank you so much for sharing your amazing story. What love and strength of character you and your family and loved ones must share. It gives me hope for the world.

Greg, I have been aware of Terri Schindler-Shiavo's story for a couple of months and I agree with every word that you and the other members have posted here. This is a travesty.

It is unthinkable to me that her husband does not have the human decency to turn her care over to her parents and allow her to live. It is possible from recently discovered evidence (which is disallowed in court) that his motivation is two-fold: inheriting the money and preventing her from ever recovering enough to be able to indicate that he had a hand -- through spousal abuse -- in putting her in this situation in the first place.

Judge Greer is just plain despicable in his decisions in terms of what to allow and not allow to be presented in court. He is clearly not interested in truth ever being known about a myriad of data relevant to the case. Frankly, I believe much of the U.S. justice system is a good-old-boy political apparatus. We the people are judged by many, many judges whose most praiseworthy quality is having kissed the right rings on their ascent to their thrones. Some good people make it into judgeships, but it's almost a fluke when that happens.

This is murder, in my opinion. Legalized murder via two weeks of starvation, with all the victim's loved ones being kept away from her by police and her horrible ego-monster husband so that she must endure her suffering and death alone. Even murderers who are sentenced to execution get to choose to have some of their loved ones present at their deaths. Not Terri Schindler-Shiavo, whose only crime was being a rather shy, private person who married a creep.

It's horrifying.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ... except that we are now so sophisticated that we no longer believe in a creator, so rights like life and liberty aren't really inalienable and it's just fine for a judge endowed with the power of the state to take away a person's right to life at the whim of that person's next of kin, who had been next of kin for only a few years...

Bah.

Maria

Kitty thank you for sharing your inspiring story. You have beautiful and wonderful parents. And yes, Terri is the victim of people who just plain don't care.

This is my opinion and there are going to be those who don't like it, but we have become a worldwide society of people who just plain don't care. What is taking place with Terri is appalling to me but I am not in the least bit surprised about it. It is something that has become the norm in the world we have created where life is meaningless. Yes, we created that world and Terri is just one more of the helpless victims of a society that not only condones but justifies the slaughter of millions upon millions of innocent babies worldwide on a daily basis. Yet no one is outraged or shocked by this practice. That practice is legal too. Do we as a society also call that "legal murder?" No. We as a society say that's okay. And beyond that we are told not to speak about the A word. Don't say it. It will offend those who advocate abortion. It is not politically correct. Because society has deemed it okay to rip a baby out of the womb of it's mother even though that baby has a beating heart the moment of conception and that fact has been scientifically proven. The genetic code of a human being is present at the moment of conception. Yet we as a society say it is okay to end that life. I am using the improper and non-politically correct term of "baby" here because society says that if you use the term "fetus" instead of "baby" it somehow makes it okay to kill it. A long term practice of those who advocate genocide is to somehow dehumanize the victim. Once dehumanized rather it be by a term or whatever means we use then it becomes okay to kill another human being. We can't go around saying we are legally killing million of babies each day worldwide, so lets just say we are killing million of fetuses worldwide daily and that will ease our conscience. That will make it okay and legally justified.

Let's not be hypocrites. It seems pretty simple to me. We either sanction ALL life or we don't. Through abortion we created a society that has proven we don't sanction all human life, no matter what the present condition of that life may be, be it an unborn baby, a handicapped person, the elderly or someone who cuts us off in traffic. We can't be shocked by one death while at the same time condoning the deaths of millions of unborn infants as a world society on a daily basis. Is Terri's life more valuable than an unborn infant? Who determines that? Well, it should be only God who determines that. But we as a worldwide society have determined that Terri's life, and others like her, are more important than unborn infants. At least Terri had 39 years of life before someone determined her life was of no importance. Unborn infants daily and worldwide never get that chance. And once again I ask, who is shocked and outraged about that?

This is MHO and I will continue to point out what I see as an inconsistency in logic and conscience any time the issue comes up. We either sanction ALL LIFE or none at all. Who gave us the authority to pick and choose who lives and who dies? All life matters, even lower animal life. If we truely believe that then we should be outraged and shocked on a daily basis just looking around us. If we aren't then it isn't just Amerika that is fast becoming a nation of genocidal Nazis but it is a worldwide society of Nazis.

Love, Connie

Hi Connie,

Your position is certainly legitimate and your logic consistent. However, that doesn't make other positions illegitimate and others' logic inconsistent.

I hold a different opinion from yours, and I am not a hypocrite. I am a moral and thinking person just as you are. My position is less absolutist and takes into account a proven biological continuum.

I believe there are legitimate moral choices at the end and beginning of life. For instance, when a person who has been born and has lived ends up in a position where they are brain-dead, when the brain has ceased to function through illness or injury, when brain waves are not present, and yet they are still able to be kept breathing through machines, it is entirely legitimate in my opinion for the family to decide to disconnect the artificial respiration.

In pregnancy, fetal brain activity does not begin and individual brain waves do not appear until about 20-24 weeks gestation. Nearly all spontaneous (nature-caused) abortions and nearly all surgical (humanly chosen) abortions occur before that stage of development has been reached.

I cried for days and mourned for my "baby" when I miscarried at 12 weeks. When I had a natural "fetal demise" at about the same point, I grieved even harder. The docs told me the heartbeat was gone, just go home and wait to pass the fetus. When the fetus passed I nearly bled to death because I live so far away from medical care and it was the weekend and the doctors had some screw up in their answering service and no one was there to discuss with me that I was bleeding too much and ought to go to the hospital. My husband and I did finally decide on our own to head to the hospital 60 miles away, and when I got there my blood pressure was so low it was a real emergency. I did nothing to end that pregnancy; I wanted that baby, and yet, that points up another important consideration. In pregnancy, there is both a potential life and an actual real living life of the mother at stake. And that mother has a right to life as well.

I believe elective abortion is always a hard moral choice for those who choose it. I also believe that before fetal brain waves begin and after living people's formerly functioning brain waves end, such choices ought to be legal. A beating heart alone is not my standard, although I understand completely that it is yours and I wouldn't dream of calling you a hypocrite for holding to it.

In Terri Schindler-Shiavo's case, this woman has brain waves. She is awake and alert. She responds to the attention paid her by those who love her. She is not brain-dead. Her case crosses the line for me and I feel moved to defend her right to life.

For clear data, without opinion one way or another, on the biology of fetal development for those interested, this link is available:

http://www.cbctrust.com/PRENATAL.html

Love,
Maria

Hi Connie, Greg, Suchi, Maria, Lisa and everyone!

I find it hard to write this now as I don't know how to put into words what I think and feel and holgd personally to be right without hurting anyone's feelings.
I'm glad you liked my story, but as far as my parents and family are concerned, I can only say: We've had our share of tears and problems and it's still far from easy. Karma spread all over three horoscopes. I could tell a bit more, but this ain't the thread for that.
As for abortion, do you really think this is the thread for discussing it? To be honest, I don't. I'm not with you on that point, Connie, but I'm not completely with Maria, either. I'm kind of in the middle of it- for several reasons. But let's discuss that one on a thread of its own. I simply refuse to mix apples and bananas here. It may be fine for a fruit's salad, but not for topics like that- in my opinion. As for being or becoming a worldwide society of Nazis, be careful about what you say, Connie. The Nazis- I mean those who were really convinced of the ideology or are still- were fundamentalists. I truly believe that terming those who might have a different opinion "hypocrites" in a very general way isn't very helpful to convince others. I respect your viewpoint, though I'm not sharing it - may I be granted the wish to be treated the same way in return, please?

Kitty

Hi Maria

I was not calling anyone a hypocrite who holds a different opinion than mine regarding abortion. It is a matter of conscience as is everything else in life. It is not up to me to judge another person's conscience and I was not doing that here. Nor was I insinuating that my decisions of conscience are correct while others are incorrect.

Nor am I completely "absolutist" regarding abortion. I am completely "absolutist" regarding the sanctity of life though. I was not talking about instances when the mother's life is endangered or abortions that are caused by nature itself. I was not talking about a person who through injury or illness becomes brain dead or saying they should be kept alive by all means. I too would say it is legitimate for the family to make the decision to disconnect the artificial means of keeping that person alive. In fact, as a fellow Roman Catholic, you know as well as I do that the RC Church also sanctions this. Just as it sanctions the decision to have an abortion if the mother's life is endangered. No absolutist here. I would not be against abortion in the case of rape either if it posed a mental threat to the woman.

But there are millions of abortions performed daily worldwide. Are all those mother's lives in danger? Are there that many women who have become pregnant due to rape? Or has abortion just become a quick fix for an unwanted pregnancy? An easy way out for both parties? Do we find ways to legitimize it and justify it?

Quote:

---

In pregnancy, fetal brain activity does not begin and individual brain waves do not appear until about 20-24 weeks gestation. Nearly all spontaneous (nature-caused) abortions and nearly all surgical (humanly chosen) abortions occur before that stage of development has been reached.

---

There is scientific differences of opinion regarding the time during gestation that brain wave function begins and scientific difference of opinion on rather or not brain wave is the main criteria for determining the beginning of human life. I consider this clear data as well. Though it does pose a difference in opinion from your data.

http://www.bfl.org/crisis/life.htm

Five signs of life in the womb:

1. Heartbeat

Modern technology can detect a baby's heartbeat eighteen days after conception.


That is only four days after most women miss a period and begin to suspect they are pregnant.


Most abortions are not performed until the eighth week (56 days) of a pregnancy, or a little later.

2. Brain waves

Six weeks after conception signals from the fetal brain can be detected.


Dream patterns have been discovered around the eighth or ninth week.


Perhaps more advanced technology will someday show us heartbeats and brain waves at even earlier stages in the unborn child's life.
3. Independent movement

At about the sixth week, the baby in the womb can move spontaneously: Kicking, swimming, jumping and stretching.


This is long before the mother will feel any sensations of movement.
4. Senses

A baby in the womb is capable of responding to touch and sound by about the eighth or tenth week.


A child at that age will move away from painful stimuli, the most painful of which would be the abortionist's instrument.
5. Breathing

By about the fourteenth week, a baby's lungs are functioning and he or she will practice breathing.


Vocal cords are formed by the thirteenth week, and were it not for a lack of air, the baby could be heard to cry!
From the very beginning, once a human egg is fertilized by sperm, there exists a new human being. All information about the child's sex, hair color, eye color, and much more is already present from the beginning.

Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania:

"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life."

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School:


"It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception."


Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic:

"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."


Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School:

"The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter - the beginning is conception."


Dr. Landrum Shettles, pioneer in sperm biology, fertility and sterility, discoverer of male- and female-producing sperm:

"I oppose abortion. I do so, first, because I accept what is biologically manifest - that human life commences at the time of conception and, second, because I believe it is wrong to take innocent human life under any circumstances."

Those are quotes from leading doctors and scientist who hold a different point of view of when life begins and as I said, there are differences in opinion among both the medical profession and scientists and biologists.

I have never lost a child. But as a mother I can certainly feel for you and all the women who have had to endure that heartache. There is nothing worse than losing a child. Before or after birth.

I too think that it is unjust and inhumane what is being done in the case of Terri Schindler-Shiavo and would defend her right to life. Because as I stated before, I believe in the sanctity of all human life. Though I presented the opposing scientific opinion regarding what constitutes human life and what doesn't, I for one have never even considered anything beyond conception. My reason for feeling that way is that conception itself is a miracle when you consider all the obstacles against it. Who are we to end that miracle? And who are we to determine what constitutes life and what doesn't? Who are we to determine when life begins and when it should end? Those are my questions. And that includes Terri and all the other Terri's to come as long as we as a society insist on playing God. Because when we go about making the determination of when life begins and when it should we are playing God. And I use the term we collectively as a society of which I am a member and include myself in the collective we .

Love, Connie

Kitty, We must have crossed posts. I explained to Maria that I was not calling anyone a hypocrite. What I said was

Quote:

---

Let's not be hypocrites.

---

I did not say, "You are all hypocrites." In fact I did not even think that. I think there is a vast difference there in how it was worded. But I would be the first to admit that being human and fallible I can be hypocritical in my thinking from time to time. We all can. Society can and just because abortion is legalized and condoned by society does not mean it is right. A lot of things are legalized and condoned that are not right.

Quote:

---

As for abortion, do you really think this is the thread for discussing it?

---

Kitty, I have to say yes, I do think that this thread, where we are discussing the right to die and the right to live, and the right to choose is the thread to once again point out that we do that worldwide on a daily basis, legally through abortion. Because when we speak of abortion we use the terms right to life and pro choice. We are speaking of that here in this thread regarding Terri's right to life and her husband's right to choose. My question is why do we as a society say it is okay to terminate the life of an unborn child, legally, on a daily basis because people legally have the right to choose according to their own moral viewpoint, while on the other hand we are saying it is not okay for Terri's husband to choose to terminate his wife's life by removing the feeding tube based on his own moral viewpoint? My question is what is the difference? Why is the law regarding abortion a correct and just law, but the judges who support Terri's husband in his right to choose based on his own conscience and moral decision wrong and unjust?

I see both abortion and what is happening to Terri as being unjust and inhumane. I see them as being the same issue only different sides of the coin. No one has to agree with my opinion but it is my right to give that opinion. Even if it isn't politcally correct and goes against what our society deems the "norm." I knew when I spoke my opinion on the matter of abortion I would be catching flack for it but I spoke it anyway. I also know that there never will be a thread around here or anywhere else where it will be acceptable to voice that opinion on abortion. Because no one wants to talk about it. If I put in such a post it would be avoided like the plague. I for one do not want to come before God one day and try to explain to him that I did not speak out on what I saw as wrong and unjust in this world because I was afraid of offending someone. Especially when it comes to something as sacred and important as human life. Rather that life is someone like Terri or an unborn infant. I stated that just as I would defend Terri's right to life, I would defend the right to life of an unborn child. How are they not the same issue? Life is life. You can't talk about one while ignoring the other. The only difference is that we can see Terri whereas an unborn baby is hidden deep within the womb.

I am not getting morally superior here I am just asking for an explanation of why, we as a society, see one okay and the other not? Why is it okay to talk about the one but not the other? I am not saying anyone is right or anyone is wrong here. I am just asking the questions. We have already determined that there are differing opinions within the scientific, medical and biological professions as to when human life begins so brain wave function as criteria for who lives and who dies just doesn't cut it in my book. IMO it's a cop out. Just another way of dehumanizing the victim. Because if we bring biology into it I point to the miracle of conception and all the odds against it ever taking place as criteria for human life. And it is also my opinion that Terri's husband is using the law that had its roots in the abortion laws as the means to committing the perfect crime. Legal murder.

Love, Connie

Well, see, I did try to discuss it with you. And I think it's OK to discuss it. And my personal feelings about abortion are probably actually a whole lot closer to yours than you are aware. But I do think it should be legal. And I was addressing your point about being consistent in logic and demonstrating that one could be consistent in logic and still take actions to defend Terri's r2l while also defending the legality of the right to choose. And you went from there assuming that I was arguing about something I was not, i.e., the beginning of life. Of course life begins at conception. And it ends when all natural functions have ceased. That's not a bit in contradiction with anything I said and I wasn't arguing about when life begins. I also was not addressing the church's teachings, as I am one of the large numbers of American Catholics who has her differences with the strict church line on reproductive issues. I see the church's position as worthy, but I do not entirely embrace it.

So, to me it seems that you have assumed a lot of things, about me, about "everyone" at the site or in society, or whatever, and that you have used a lot of pejorative language and called my response a cop-out. So, see, for me it's not about "this subject may not be discussed here"; and it's not about "Connie has opened herself up to flack, let's start throwing." For me it's about, I can see the validity of your view but you are entirely unwilling to entertain any possiblity that my view may also have validity, so what's the point of going further?

Sorry for any offense. I have great affection for you and no desire to get into a pissing match where the end result will be that we each still have our own different opinions but now we're both covered in piss and our throats hurt from all the screaming.

I'm just glad the Florida Legislature can see that Terri's case was important enough to step in and adjust the law regarding removal of nutrition and hydration.

Love,
Maria

She's not out of the woods yet ... the Florida House has passed the emergency measure, and the Senate has agreed to vote on it tonight, both very positive steps. However, Terri is still in the custody of folks who are VERY determined to see her die, and to go to any lengths to achieve that. Between now and tonight when the Senate votes, Terri could easily die as an "accidental" result of pain medication she is being given, or any number of other scenarios given that her would-be killers still have total physical control over her.

Moreover, the bill authorizes Bush to "order the reinsertion of the feeding tube," but does NOT provide for the state or anyone else to take her into protective custody. The cabal of "right to death" supporters who are involved in this effort could very easily refuse to follow the order, file an appeal as a delaying tactic, find a sympathetic judge to rule that the legislature's resolution is "unconstitutional," etc., and doubtless will. The action needed now is for Governor Bush to order State police to physically remove Terri from the premises and control of these people and place her in protective custody until a genuinely objective assessment can be made (as opposed to the one-sided "expert testimony" that has been allowed by Judge Greer, only from "experts" who are personally and professionally committed to the euthanasia movement.) For that to happen, Terri's situation must remain at public top-of-mind awareness and her plight continuously discussed and broadcast as widely as possible until she is actually safe from these monsters.

Otherwise, the likely end of the story will be her death while all the political figures involved can pat themselves on the back and say "well, we did our best."

Connie ... I think abortion is an important issue, and we SHOULD discuss it. I also think Terri's situation is important and critical enough that it is of value to have a thread devoted entirely to it, that is NOT sidetracked into a discussion about the related and also important subject of abortion. I am up for such a discussion the moment I get the co-op software up and running on the server (which I am fervently hoping will be today) ... but I do think that Terri's plight is urgent enough to warrant a thread of its own that is not absorbed into a wider discussion. Can we continue the discussion of abortion on a different thread of its own?

Love,
Greg

I try to stay out of discussions where it may appear I'm taking sides...delicate balance it is .....
It was a great test here in World Community through the whole war in Iraq....a lot of times I wanted to express my opinion but felt it would only look like I was defending my Mom, therefore discrediting what she posted and what I posted altogether. Our opinions differ and sometimes they're similiar....but if we feel the same way, I fear it only appears we are banding together, hence separating from others....which isn't how it is, so I keep quiet...

But actions speak volumes that words cannot express and so I just wanted to share a real-life experience that occured.
When I was 16 and pregnant, even though my Mom hoped I wouldn't choose abortion (although unspoken at the time), she left that decision entirely up to me, knowing it was a very personal choice that I had to make on my own.
Never once did she talk me into or out of anything.....and I'm sure that must have been hard for her.
As it turned out I miscarried, so the decision was made for me.
I know her, so I know for all her determined passion in her beliefs that when it comes down to it, she knows that it is a personal thing that we all have to right to decide.

And also knowing her natal and when she made the post here...the Moon was in Leo sitting dead-on Pluto and Mars in her 1st House ....so at the time passions were intense to say the least...

As for not being appropriate to post here...I can see what you guys are saying, but also I understand Terri's plight brought her into her own spiralings...just as it spiraled you into thoughts of parrallels to your own life, Kitty.

Ok...enough said. you all.....

and am hoping that there will be a just decision from the Senate tonight for Terri.

~Lisa

Seeing that we have a huge misunderstanding brewing here I will try to make this clear as I can. I have stated that I agree with the position that you all take regarding Terri. I would sign any petition that said I was opposed to removing her feeding tubes and the courts decison to do so. On that issue we are in total agreement. On the sanctity of human life we are all in agreement. We differ on abortion as being a part of the equation of the sanctiy of human life. Is that fair to say? And it's okay to differ on the topic of abortion. But I am real happy to hear you say, Greg that it is an issue we should talk about.

Maria, you should know that I love and respect you and find that all you say is valid and very much worth taking into consideration. I take everything that anyone says into consideration. I respect your viewpoints on any subject including abortion based on your own thoughtful analysis of the facts presented and your own morality. They may not entirely agree with my viewpoint, but they give me a lot to think about and I do think about what you or anyone else here says. I do not consider my morality superior to yours or anyone else. I am not a judgmental person and I do not judge anyone who either has had an abortion or who believes it should be legalized. That is a matter of conscience and I don't go there. While I am posting these things and asking the questions, I am asking myself the questions at the same time I am asking all of you. Like you, Maria, as a Roman Catholic, though I respect the Church's position on everything I don't entirely agree with it all either. I question everything. It is how I learn and how I grow as a person. I also take into consideration while questioning the Church's position on certain issues that hopefully the theologians, priests and the Pope are operating oh a higher level of spirituality and intellectual understanding than I am. Though it sometimes doesn't seem to be the case. And it isn't necessarily the case just because they hold the titles and positions in the Church.

All I was attempting to do here is question what lies at the root of what is happening to Terri in Florida. Perhaps I didn't word it the way that I should have or could have but truthfully, I don't think there is anyway of presenting the issue of abortion that is not going to offend someone no matter how it is presented. Nor do I think there is any way of presenting the issue of abortion without it becoming confrontational. It is as you said, Maria, an explosive topic. As a society we are divided into camps on that issue. It has been since the beginning an ongoing debate in our society. The way that I presented it may have seemed to you and others to be deliberately confrontationl but that was not the intention. I think there are some things that may need to be expressed strongly, if for no other reason than to get people's attention. Mostly though it's usually expressed that way because that is the way it is felt. I have to say in all honesty, Maria, that I was not assuming anything about you or anyone else. I presented my thoughts, maybe too emotionally and strongly, and was referring to society as a whole, not just you or anyone else. When I spoke about the brain wave criteria for determining what constitutes a living human being, I was referring to the stance I know that pro-choice takes on that, not to you. I should have made that clear so for you to think I was referring to you is my fault and I'm sorry. I think it was just a big misunderstanding and I don't always express myself well. Your differing from me in your viewpoint on abortion or anything else does not make me respect you less or love the truly beautiful soul you have, Maria. That goes for everyone else at CE as well. If I thought otherwise of all of you I wouldn't be here.

I was attempting, in my own fumbling way, to make the point that the issue with Terri is one equation of the whole picture. I was attempting to take the blinders off ( so to speak ) of myself along with the rest of you and look at the root causes. Mainly because we wouldn't even be discussing euthanasia if it were not for the abortion laws. Because once the abortion laws were passed legalizing that, euthanasia was just the next step. The abortion laws came first. And where is it going to end? What I was trying to do was open the window and look at the whold panorama of where it all began and where we are headed as a society. Also where does the fault lie? I hate to admit this but I don't feel I can blame governments, courts and judges, this or that person such as Terri's husband and say the problem is them. I hate to admit it but the problem is me. The problem is a collective society of each of us individually. It all began when we as a society decided that individual rights were more important than what is good for the society as a whole. We are all one, we are all connected and what affects one person affects us all. That's my opinion.

Another thing is that I believe that for us to grow spirtually and become better people we have to ask ourselves the hard questions. We can't avoid those questions and ever hope to become better people. The hardest questions to ask ourselves is where am I at fault for the condition of the society that I live in? Am I scapegoating someone else or something else rather than looking at myself and what is wrong in here? Am I speaking up when I should or am I remaining silent in the face of what I see is evil, wrong or unjust? Do I do enough? The list can be endless. I just don't think I can go anywhere spiritually if I don't ask myself the questions and in the process we should be asking each other the hard questions too. Cause frankly I can't think of all the questions and mostly, I just find it disturbing sometimes to ask myself those hard questions.

Another thought is words. Where is Chahlie when we need him? Hypocrite is just another word. We draw our own connotations of that word. It means saying one thing and doing another and what human being is not sometimes guilty of that? I know I am. It also means pretending to be something one is not. Jesus threw that word around a few times himself. But in this case it was probably misused on my part. I should have just said, "Let's not be inconsistent in our thinking." Sometimes, and I am not accusing any of you of doing this, we pick out a word and argue semantics as a means of avoiding the topic or issue. It can be a psychological ploy or defense. If we argue word usage we get off on that topic and avoid the other.

Love, Connie

Quote:

---

And also knowing her natal and when she made the post here...the Moon was in Leo sitting dead-on Pluto and Mars in her 1st House ....so at the time passions were intense to say the least...

---

That splains it I am unaware of where my planets are at any given time because I am illiterate when it comes to figuring that out in astrology but I am aware of the high passions I felt yesterday. Just ask your dad about yesterday

Love, Mom

Thanks, guys

Quote:

---

Gov. Bush orders effort to save brain-damaged woman
He signs bill to reinsert Terri Schiavo's feeding tube
Tuesday, October 21, 2003 Posted: 7:23 PM EDT (2323 GMT)

TALLAHASSEE, Florida (CNN) -- Florida Gov. Jeb Bush ordered a feeding tube reinserted into a brain-damaged woman Tuesday afternoon, less than two hours after the Legislature passed a bill allowing him to do so.

Florida lawmakers gave Bush the authority in an effort to keep Terri Schiavo alive nearly a week after the tube was removed at her husband's request, effectively overturning a court ruling that she be allowed to die.

"Like the tens of thousands of Floridians who have raised their voices in support of Terri Schiavo's right to live, I have been deeply moved by these tragic circumstances," Bush said in a statement issued after he signed the bill. "My thoughts and prayers remain with Terri and those who love her."

Schiavo is being cared for at a hospice in Pinellas Park. She was moved Tuesday evening to a hospital in Clearwater, where she will be rehydrated intravenously in preparation for reinsertion of the feeding tube, which will not happen immediately.

The state Senate voted 23-15 on Tuesday to approve a measure allowing Bush to issue the one-time order. The tube was removed after a lengthy court battle between Terri Schiavo's husband, Michael, and her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler.

The bill also allows a judge to appoint an independent guardian for Schiavo, taking away guardianship from her husband.

Tuesday afternoon, a judge in Clearwater refused to issue a temporary restraining order that Michael Schiavo's attorneys had sought. Schiavo's attorneys argue that the bill authorizing Bush to reinstate the tube is unconstitutional.

"It violates the separation of powers between the judicial and executive branches," attorney Debbie Bushnell said.

Outside the hospice in Pinellas Park, the crowd cheered and embraced after learning of Bush's signature.

"I don't know what to say," said Bob Schindler. "I thank the governor, I thank everybody in the Legislature. There's a lot of people up there who pulled together. It's just incredible, totally incredible.

"We've had a roller coaster ride. Hopefully, that's over now."

By a vote of 68-23, the GOP-controlled Florida House approved the bill late Monday.

The Schindlers had been publicly pressing Bush to intervene. He had expressed sympathy for their position but said he did not have the authority to countermand court orders allowing the tube to be removed.

Terry Schiavo, 39, has been in what doctors call a persistent vegetative state since suffering heart failure in 1990. Doctors said she is responsive but shows no significant cognitive ability, and that she was left in that condition when her heart failure cut the flow of oxygen to her brain, leaving it damaged.

Schiavo is not terminally ill, but because of her condition, she cannot feed herself, so the feeding tube provides her with nutrition and water.

She left no written instructions about her wishes should she be incapacitated, but Michael Schiavo said she made it clear before her collapse that she did not want to be sustained with life support.

"Some people do not agree with the decision the court made to remove this feeding tube. I struggle to accept it myself," Schiavo said in a statement late Monday. "But I know in my heart that it is right, and it is what Terri wants. There is no longer any realistic hope of Terri's recovery."

Her parents dispute that contention, insisting that despite her medical condition, she still responds to them and could improve with rehabilitative care.

Michael Schiavo collected more than $1 million in malpractice settlements stemming from his wife's collapse, but only about $50,000 of that settlement remains. The money has been frozen by the court.

The hospice is taking care of Schiavo at no charge.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/10/21/coma.woman/index.html

---

Love,
Greg

This is very good news, Greg I'm very happy for Terri and her parents. Hopefully Terri will eventually be under the guardianship of her parents. It's also a big win for those who believe in the right to life.

Love, Connie

I'm doing the happy dance!!! Tens of thousands of prayers sent and answered in one fell swoop. I love how the outcome tonight fulfills all points of the best-case scenario in terms of what I was able to envision. Like, in my letter, I asked the legislators to save her life and then go further by finding some way to remove control of her care from her husband and give it to her birth family. (OK, who will be the new guardian we don't know yet.) But she's no longer being starved and her husband no longer has control of her care. Yay!

Then the third point that I emphasized was that we the people rely on the branch of government closest to us, the legislative branch, to do what's right and protect our inalienable rights, particularly when our ivory-tower judicial and executive branches fail in their ability to see into the heart of the matter, and I made the point that their decision matters to the entire U.S. No doubt my letter was one of thousands that was simply tallied by legislative staff, and probably not even read by any legislators, and no doubt thousands of people said similar things. But in the outcome of the voting, and in the commentary afterward on the news stations, it was so cool to hear the very things I felt so strongly being reflected so strongly back to me. It really made me feel like they can't Nazify everybody, right down through the state legislators, and it gave me hope for our democracy.

So, thanks for having posted this thread, Greg, because even though I knew about the case, I felt it was beyond my ability to do anything and I probably wouldn't have even written my e-mail and added my drop to the bucket and had my faith in the democratic way renewed if not for you.

Maria