Wednesday, January 18, 2006
"Look! Another Terri!"
And given the wingnut lobby's God-inspired concern for the late Terri Schiavo, I can only assume that they will descend en masse on Massachusetts in the same way. Then again, Boston in January ... nah. I'm guessing they'll suddenly have other priorities. Ones that involve, say, staying warm and comfy.
Now if that had happened in Texas, well ... that's different. It's warmer.
(Props to Dependable Renegade.)
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Except, of course, that Terri Schiavo did not need extraordinary means to keep her alive (i.e. life support). She was not in an "irreversible and permanent coma." Your comparison is flawed, ridiculous and downright petty.
Ah ... and you know this young lady is in an "irreversible and permanent coma" how exactly? Because the doctors say so? These would be the same category of people who, when they said the same thing about Terri Schiavo, weren't to be trusted, isn't that right?
My, but we can be selective in our use of authority, can't we?
Comatose beaten girl reacts to stimuli
The girl is breathing on her own and is responding to stimuli. Still ready to pull that plug, CC?
You know, I'm getting too old to give courses in remedial thinking.
The point wasn't whether the plug should be "pulled" or not.
The point was why the same frothing, howling wingnuts who set up shop in Florida, weeping crocodile tears over Terri Schiavo, aren't up in Boston as we speak doing exactly the same thing.
And while you're feeling so smug, perhaps you should read that article more carefully. First, it states that the 11-year-old was breathing on her own but, then again, so was Terri Schiavo so that doesn't mean squat.
It then claims that the girl was "responding to medical stimuli" but a DSS spokeswoman openly admitted she couldn't say "how Haleigh was responding or to what tests."
So unless you have some sort of Bill Frist remote diagnostic ability about what precisely is going on with this girl, I suggest you put a sock in it before you embarrass yourself any further.
Or, if you want to make yourself useful, feel free to hop over to Boston and start parading up and down outside the hospital, yammering about God and the "sanctity of life."
Unless you're prepared to do that, feel free to shut the fuck up about this.
By the way, for those readers who are still sentient, notice the completely contradictory positions taken by the two anonymous posters (who may or may not be the same individual).
The first one dismisses the controversy by claiming that the girl is in an "irreversible and permanent coma," meaning this is in no way equivalent to the Schiavo case since this girl is clearly much worse off and there is no hope.
The second anonymous poster, on the other hand, points to the possibility that the girl is responding to stimuli, therefore this case is not equivalent to Schiavo since she could very well be in much better shape.
I propose that we put those two anonymous posters in the same room and let them fight it out to see which position they want to defend.
And if those posters happen to be the same person, well ... that's just scary.
Same person, thanks.
What's truly scary is that - gosh! - the doctors were WRONG. If she's breathing on her own and responding to stimuli now, then she's not brain-dead as they originally were arguing. There's no contradiction in my two posts. The first was made with the information I had at the time. That information changed. If she were truly brain-dead, I would have no problem with letting her die. She is obviously not brain-dead, however, so her death now would be state-sanctioned murder.
"If she's breathing on her own and responding to stimuli now, then she's not brain-dead as they originally were arguing."
You are trying to move the goal posts in this discussion. Where, in either the article posted by CC or the one posted by you, was brain-death mentioned specifically? Who was arguing that fact? In fact, the Massachusetts's Supreme Court stated that she "is in an irreversible and permanent coma, with the least amount of brain function that a person can have and still be considered alive." You quoted this yourself.
Address the point at hand ; where is the right-to-life crowd on this one? They thought Schiavo was responding to external stimuli like balloons, so why is this different? Take a moment of two and write a cogent response.
well,it's Boston... right in the middle of BLUE territory. The right to life crowd only cares about its own. Then there is reality... MA does not have a Republican Senator to champion their cause through Congress. And I suppose it is also relevant to consider that the power of "right to inhumane treatement" crowd had their position considerably weakened by their behavior in the Schaivo case. Asidefromallthe grandstanding to raise money for themselves, they showed themselves to be not motivated by faith, but rather by a lack of it in their inability to accept gods will in this matter.
Post a Comment