Why is Congress so anxious to keep Terri Schiavo alive? - Page 2

Catholicvegan · #16 Mar 21, '05, 7:37 am

You didn't answer my question. Please, explain: why is congress so interested in this case and not every case like this? Answer: this is an attempt to appeal to the religous right (like you, masondoggy), and that is why they are pushing so hard to keep Terri Schiavo alive.

Scott_Lafrance · #17 Mar 21, '05, 7:37 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catholicvegan

Why is congress so anxious to keep Terri Schiavo alive? I think the answer is clear- they have never been so interested in an euthanasia case until now...perhaps the overwhelming publicity has something to do with that?

You see, I was reading an article in my local newspaper describing a memo to republicans in Congress saying that we should take a particular interest in this to appeal to conservative Christians because republicans need their support in the upcoming elections.

Now, I knew that republicans manipulate things to get votes, but isn't this crossing the line? But then again, it's certainly working- look at the reactions here!

Sooo, because they want to keep Terri from being executed for a crime she sis not commit, the Republican Party now has an agenda. I worry about you dude.

aimee · #18 Mar 21, '05, 7:38 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catholicvegan

Dear felra,

Seeing as every single court case has revealed that she didn't want to be kept on life support, why should her wishes be ignored?

A note to everyone else:

None of you answered my question. You, as conservatives usually do, gave me irrelevant answers because you refused to accept the facts I presented. Come back, and give decent answers that are actually answers to my questions, and then I'll reply.

Come on CV, your not for real are you? I think the others have answered you...you just don't like the answers or perhaps just like to try to be a flamer...

tuopaolo · #19 Mar 21, '05, 7:43 am

The memo you mention catholic vegan, doesn't just talk about political benefits; it ALSO says that it is the right thing to do. So this may be a case of incomplete reporting.

And I suspect the memo may not be authentic. It may have been manufactured by Democrats or some Democrat-supporting people and then somehow leaked to the press as a Republican memo to discredit them.

jrabs · #20 Mar 21, '05, 7:45 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catholicvegan

You didn't answer my question. Please, explain: why is congress so interested in this case and not every case like this? Answer: this is an attempt to appeal to the religous right (like you, masondoggy), and that is why they are pushing so hard to keep Terri Schiavo alive.

Yet you would be the first one there defending a chicken or mink's life and the manner in which it's life would terminated.
This is also torture - but with a much higher cost. And I think this is why they are spotlighting this case.

StratusRose · #21 Mar 21, '05, 7:45 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catholicvegan

You didn't answer my question. Please, explain: why is congress so interested in this case and not every case like this? Answer: this is an attempt to appeal to the religous right (like you, masondoggy), and that is why they are pushing so hard to keep Terri Schiavo alive.

Sounds like you only hear what you want to hear. If you already know the supposed answer to your question, then why do you keep asking?

juno24 · #22 Mar 21, '05, 7:45 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catholicvegan

Dear felra,

Seeing as every single court case has revealed that she didn't want to be kept on life support, why should her wishes be ignored?

Just to clarify-- Terri Schiavo is NOT on any life support machines. She breathes on her own, and her heart and other organs function on their own. Feeding and hydrating a person via means of a tube rather than orally is FAR from being on life support. Her wishes are not being ignored. If she were in a situation where she required machines to breathe and pump her heart for her, then any wishes not to be kept alive by machines would need to be considered. Even a person who chooses not to be kept alive by life support machines is given nourishment and hydration until the bodily functions which would have been supported by machine shut down naturally.

Catholicvegan · #23 Mar 21, '05, 7:45 am

Congress has an agenda alright: appeal to nearly everyone here, nearly all of whom can be defined as the religous right (i.e. telling anyone who doesn't support all republicans that they aren't really Catholic). The article that I read just explains that the republicans in Congress have selfish motives in the passing of this bill. Elections are coming up soon for many congressmen and they want to (1) repay the religous right for their help in Bush's re-election, and (2) get the support of the religous right in the upcoming congressional elections. Since none of you have accepted these facts or said that what the republicans are doing is wrong, I guess that you think it is okay. Well, that's too bad...but I guess that price of being an ultra-conservative.

jrabs · #24 Mar 21, '05, 7:48 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catholicvegan

Congress has an agenda alright: appeal to nearly everyone here, nearly all of whom can be defined as the religous right (i.e. telling anyone who doesn't support all republicans that they aren't really Catholic). The article that I read just explains that the republicans in Congress have selfish motives in the passing of this bill. Elections are coming up soon for many congressmen and they want to (1) repay the religous right for their help in Bush's re-election, and (2) get the support of the religous right in the upcoming congressional elections. Since none of you have accepted these facts or said that what the republicans are doing is wrong, I guess that you think it is okay. Well, that's too bad...but I guess that price of being an ultra-conservative.

Black and white is good. I love being ultra-conservative.

StratusRose · #25 Mar 21, '05, 7:49 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catholicvegan

Congress has an agenda alright: appeal to nearly everyone here, nearly all of whom can be defined as the religous right (i.e. telling anyone who doesn't support all republicans that they aren't really Catholic). The article that I read just explains that the republicans in Congress have selfish motives in the passing of this bill. Elections are coming up soon for many congressmen and they want to (1) repay the religous right for their help in Bush's re-election, and (2) get the support of the religous right in the upcoming congressional elections. Since none of you have accepted these facts or said that what the republicans are doing is wrong, I guess that you think it is okay. Well, that's too bad...but I guess that price of being an ultra-conservative.

So I'm confused here. The more important question is do you think Terri Schiavo should live or die at the behest of her husband? Also, how many 26 year olds do you know tell their loved ones they do not want to be on life support?

As a Catholic, you are expected to stand up for life.

wabrams · #26 Mar 21, '05, 7:50 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by felra

Short answer: Because it is the right thing to do.

Question for Catholicvegan: Where is the compassion in the Democrats who oppose intervention to save this woman from a tragic and unjust death at the hands of her estranged husband?

Hold on a minute. This bill crossed party lines. The Republican who introduced the bill said right from the get go there were over 30 Democrats that supported it.

StJeanneDArc · #27 Mar 21, '05, 7:50 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catholicvegan

Congress has an agenda alright: appeal to nearly everyone here, nearly all of whom can be defined as the religous right (i.e. telling anyone who doesn't support all republicans that they aren't really Catholic). The article that I read just explains that the republicans in Congress have selfish motives in the passing of this bill. Elections are coming up soon for many congressmen and they want to (1) repay the religous right for their help in Bush's re-election, and (2) get the support of the religous right in the upcoming congressional elections. Since none of you have accepted these facts or said that what the republicans are doing is wrong, I guess that you think it is okay. Well, that's too bad...but I guess that price of being an ultra-conservative.

So are you saying that feeding Terri Schiavo is wrong?

**fix** · #28 Mar 21, '05, 7:51 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catholicvegan

Congress has an agenda alright: appeal to nearly everyone here, nearly all of whom can be defined as the religous right (i.e. telling anyone who doesn't support all republicans that they aren't really Catholic). The article that I read just explains that the republicans in Congress have selfish motives in the passing of this bill. Elections are coming up soon for many congressmen and they want to (1) repay the religous right for their help in Bush's re-election, and (2) get the support of the religous right in the upcoming congressional elections. Since none of you have accepted these facts or said that what the republicans are doing is wrong, I guess that you think it is okay. Well, that's too bad...but I guess that price of being an ultra-conservative.

Even if there are individual politicians supporting life for selfish political reasons that is still a help to this poor woman and more help than the other side that embraces the culture of death at almost every turn.

caroljm36 · #29 Mar 21, '05, 7:53 am

Here, read Mickey Kaus's comment at the top and follow his links and you'll get up to speed on the facts. Kaus is a liberal writer but I love him because he actually GETS moral & conservative argument and sees the hypocrisy in his own crowd (you can't beat a good lib when it comes to critiquing their own).

Kaus goes through all the gotchas.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2115112/

This is as good a time as ever, and as good a case as ever, to confront this "right to die" movement. Her case has come to symbolize a whole cluster of issues.

Like I noticed, 15 years ago when the Living Will became such a hot item, why is it assumed that the will is going to say "don't keep me on life supports"? What if it said, "hey, KEEP me on life supports!" Would it be honored? I think with some families it would never see the light of day. But people always advise you to get a living will and just assume you want to go quickly.

Then there is this whole Death and Dying movement. We have a big purveyor in my town and he is SO respected..but what is it about exactly? It seems to be all about hospice, morphine and letting it go...I dunno what the Holy Father would say about all that.

Island Oak · #30 Mar 21, '05, 7:56 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by StratusRose

Interesting that you bring that up. I checked "feminist" websites this morning to see if they had anything to say about Terri, and they said nothing at all. It's amazing how they turn their head the other way. They're either too afraid to stand up for what's right, or they're afraid of a negative reaction if they say what they're really thinking.

I don't get it. These feminist organizations are all about saving women from male oppressors, but they refuse to see how a husband is trying to deny his wife her right to live, and her right to decent medical care.

How is that not oppression and brutality???

Then you've obviously missed Feminists for Life, which has been a vocal presence in the Terri Schiavo case as well as many other life issues.