This is scary to me because it seems like the president and his brother are working on a technique to get around the Supreme Court.

yes but why?

I think the why is really interesting.

I think it should come down to a popular vote. We should all have our say. We could all text in our votes.

I just love how this highlights their hypocrisy -- we all have the right to life, but oh wait, there is that death penalty thing. Yeee haw!

Well, at least the Christian Conservatives and pro-life lobbyists are getting (part of) their money's worth now. It is always a shame to see your money go to waste.

Pesky judicial system. Always trying to, you know, uphold the law.

Also, it seems state's rights are only an issue when your party doesn't control the federal branch.

Sometimes a case comes along that is so extraordinary and so revolting that it requires intervention. Hopefully this will bring a wave of state law changes taking food and water out of the realm of "life support". Even if she said offhandedly that she wouldn't want to live (some way), that doesn't mean that barbaric starvation and dehydration would be her prefered method of death. Recovered "vegetative state" patient Kate Adamson recetly said "If they want to kill Terri they should have the guts to put a gun to her head." She is right. I don't condone that either, but at least that wouldn't be pronlonged and immensely painful and brutal. I would encourage you all to read Kate's powerful words at:

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/mar/05031408.html

Also, if anyone is interested in history or facts on the Schiavo case, you can get them at www.terrisfight.org

The alleged Christian, gizmo, speaks of "disturbing precedents" the only one I can think of here is allowing a person to brutally and painfully starve to death in a government-sanctioned execution so her supposed husband can laugh all the way to the bank after claiming the fund accumulated for her medical care. Let's not forget he has absolutely refused meaningful therapy for her since 1991, despite the advice of doctors, and to this day nobody is exactly sure what caused her collapse in 1990. We do know that at least one nurse has alleged his eagerness to see his wife dead as early as 1996, when he kept asking "is the bitch dead yet?" and tried to inject her with insulin to further the process.

Karen and Emily continue to shock and amaze, because we all know they would both care more about Terri if she were a muslim terrorist who had her underwear put over her head, or a dog bark at her. These two supposed advocates for women's rights are apparently just fine with an innocent woman's death at the hands of her bloodthirsty and money-hungry husband. What a great way to advance women's lib!

And of course comparisons to the the death penalty (aimed at the guilty) or suggestions that the Governor of a State is somehow culpable for following the laws of the state that are silly and not worth the time it takes to respond to them.

When my child arrives in October, maybe I shouldn't feed him/her since he/she won't be able to feed him/herself. Maybe When my parents have trouble eating on their own I should starve them to death...too much of a pain to care for, right? I shouldn't have that burden interfering with my freedom, right??

What a pathetic, disturbed beyond repair society. And you all who defend the death-mongers are just as sick and disturbed, which is why I don't post anymore. My family and I will all have a living will at the risk that one of you ghouls should be at our bedside someday, giving alleged "care".

Now excuse me while I partake of this life support (granola bar) sitting on my desk.

Ah, a hateful rant from Dude. How I've missed them so.

Also, how the fuck does women's lib enter into this?

(HINT: feminists ruin EVERYTHING!)

You might also want to take another look at my post, Dude. Which is 2 lines long. And doesn't say anything about women's rights. Or muslims. Or your personal choices about life support. Or babies. Or abortion. Or the death penalty.

OH...I didn't realize I wasn't allowed to recall past conversations! Excuse me!

The fact that you interpret my frustration with this outrageous situation as "hateful" is another indication of your sickness. You got it Emily, I hate the culture of death, and I'm not very fond of those who promote it.

As far as the rest of your reply...I promise that if I can find any evidence that you have actually used even a small portion of your brain once on this blog...I'll shave my balls and mail it to you as a peace offering.

I don't think this about a "culture of death" or a "culture of life" or a "live yogurt culture that I ate and now is it dead or alive?"

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass whether this lady lives or dies. I don't know her. But my understanding is that her husband didn't request that she not be fed. He asked the courts to decide, and the court ruled that she would not have wanted the treatment of the feeding tube.

To me this about severely undermining the judicial system while distracting people by waving around a big fat "culture of my ass" flag so they can all shout about religion and abortion and the barking dog underwear terrorists of Islam. Meanwhile my right to make all sorts of medical decisions gets flushed down the toilet.

And I'm still waiting for the emergency session of congress to make specially tailored laws all about me. I would like to order "The Karen's Right to a Large Endowment and Never Having to Work Another Day Bill" please. With a side of "The Karen Always Gets to Park Wherever She Wants Amemdment."

Oh, and I thought this was an interesting point.

On a personal level - and I acknowledge that Terri may not have felt the same way - the more I think about this case, the more horrified I become imagining myself in Schiavo’s position.

Here’s what gets to me: After I’m dead, the main way I’ll continue existing is in the memories of my friends and relatives. It’s macabre to imagine that my loved ones, rather than remembering me as I was, could instead focus on a shell, animated by a brain stem and reflex motions but completely empty of self. Over the years, all the dominant memories of me - what I was like before the accident - would be gradually replaced by memories of my mindless body making random motions and sounds in a hospital bed.

And then I’d really be gone, gone even from the memories of my friends and relatives, removed from their brains in favor of an empty shell. It’s hard for me to imagine anything more gruesome.

From Alas, a blog.

Some comments on Comments....
First. Karen you rock! Way to follow up one of the funniest most cutting comments I've seen in a long time with one of the most poignant.

And Dude... As I like to say to my friends when we talk and the take a random left turn in conversation "That's the answer to a different question." In otherwords way to rant passionatly about something that only slightly misses the ENTIRE POINT.

If you insist on personally attacking me, at least make it relevant to the post, Dude.

"Personally, I don't give a rat's ass whether this lady lives or dies." -telling...very telling, but not surprising coming from you.

"But my understanding is that her husband didn't request that she not be fed. He asked the courts to decide, and the court ruled that she would not have wanted the treatment of the feeding tube."

This is the most inane bit of rationalization and psycho-babble I have ever seen. It wouldn't have gone to court if he didn't want the tube removed in the first place when the rest of the family did not. That's what court IS...cases arise when someone WANTS one thing and another party WANTS something else. This must also be why he has refused therapy?? That makes as much sense as using someone elses personal thoughts on what they BELIEVE they would want as an argument for this case (the post from the blog above). That person should have every right to articulate their morbid desires in their own living will. But Terri's sketchy-at-best husband claiming that at some point she said she might not want to live in some state is a much looser claim to what her wishes might have been.

I don't need to personally attack you Emily, or you Karen. Your obvious nonsensical and strained attempts to defend the indefensible make it very clear to anyone passing through (of any sense or conscience) the ghoulishness of your supposed "ideals".

If she is allowed to die it is nothing less than a national travesty for the horrific precedent it sets, and on some level deep within the conscisence God gave you, the one that your liberal surroundings have conditioned you to resist, you all know I am right.

Dude out.

Again dude... Off topic.

Oh and John G. - Thanks but I got the point. In fact in my very first sentence I said all that was necessary to address the stupid and rhetorical comments about the supposed improproety of Congress intervening.

"Sometimes a case comes along that is so extraordinary and so revolting that it requires intervention."

And Karen, despite the bills press consumption name being "Terri's Law", the actual language of the bill itself does not mention her name anywhere and in fact has nothing to do with her specifically...though the hope was to affect her case retroactively through full judicial review (which the court refused to do). So, in fact, the supposed "dictatorial effort" by Congress and the President had no affect, as the TRUE dictators and tyrants of our modern society - the FEDERAL JUDGES once again thumbed their noses at the law.

You fear the wrong enemy, and put your trust in the wrong saviors. Power to the unelected Judges!!! WHoo-hoooo!!!

Oh and I get it...the ones who you agree with can go "off topic" but I can't respond to them?!?! Got it! Glad to understand the rules!

I officially declare your brains to all be in a "persistent vegetative state". Good thing I'm not a judge or we'd be starving you all to death, eh?

I don't need to personally attack you Emily, or you Karen.

Then don't.

Seriously, ad hominem attacks are like, so late October 2004. Yawn. Totally over.

That was pretty funny, actually.

Hopefully someday people will be saying "killing innocent, voiceless people is like, so late 20th, early 21st century."

Some comments from THE alleged Christian.

Firstly, there is only about 50K left of the medicare fund Dude speaks of. Most of it has been used on court costs and keeping Terri alive. Thats not much to laugh all the way to the bank about considering it was $1Mil at its peak.

Secondly, I have an aquaintance who works for the National Right to Life agency, which worked on the Schiavo case last year. He said that NO ONE gave a crap about Terri's life, not her parents and not her husband, and they were simply all about the money. They provided a solution for them which would keep Terri alive at no cost to anyone, and her parents rejected the offer, because then they couldnt fight over money any more.

Finally, given the fact that medical doctors have testified that Terri's cerebral cortex is mostly spinal fluid at this point it is certain that she cant feel a damn thing, so she is not "painfully" starving to death All of her actions are mere reflexes of the small bit of brain she has left.

Oh yes, and judges did not decide that she was in a "persistent vegetative state," doctors did.

Dude, I have attempted to explain my opinions to you on this board and privately at many times. I am sick and tired of your self righteousness. My comment had nothing to do with religion or even if I think Terri should be kept alive or not, but every chance you get you attempt to discredit me as a Christian. You seem awfully filled with hate and intolerance for a person who claims to not only follow a man who was the pinnacle of love and tolerance, but also thinks he has the authority to read the hearts and minds of others and decide if they are "real" Christians. Im sick of being harrassed simply because you cant get over the fact that not all Christians think like you.

I posted this in the first place because I wanted to know what everyone else though about the President and the Congress circumventing the court system. I should have suspected that it would turn into a religious flame war.

Gizmo...I've decided that you, like many of the others, are a waste of my time because you only consider the facts you select. There is no point in me listing the many doctors, including Nobel Prize nominee DR. BILL HAMMESFAHR, who have visited with Terri and have as recently as yesterday said things like "We have children in Pinelas county in worse shape than Terri that we are educating in the public school system."

As far as my "hate and intolerance", I have pussy-footed around your nonsense, only to have my logical arguments twisted or disregarded. You can call me hateful and intolerant all day long but it won't matter in heaven. When I am asked what I did to defend the innocent, I won't have to rationalize for the Lord why I rationalized for the devil. Christ preached love and tolerance, but he also said "go and sin no more" to the adulterer. He didn't preach tolerance for sin, or relieve us of the responsibility of not sinning, he just gave us a way out. A way in which if we STOPPED SINNING, we could find forgiveness through his shed blood. He also never once advocated for "mercy killings" and when something was outrageous and unacceptable, he expressed anger (turning over the tables of the money-changers in the temple). I curse you for not bearing the fruit of your faith as Christ cursed the fig tree. I curse you in righteous anger as Christ cursed those who would defile the temple.

Your desire to find any hole in my argument (i.e. the amount of money Terri's husband will be receiving upon her death)to ignore the greater issue speaks volumes for your heart. I don't have to be "self-righteous" to know the "doctrines of demons" Paul spoke of in I Timothy 4:1 when I see them. You can fall back on the tired old "hate and intolerance" line all you want, but I know what's really going on here. And don't give me that horseshit about wanting other Christians to think like me, when you have challenged my faith directly in the past as well, simply for not thinking like YOU. I have just as much right as you to differentiate between my faith and whatever the hell you are practicing that you dare to call by the same name.

By the way, my comments to Karen and Emily about caring more for Terri if she were a Muslim terrorist also apply to you. Sorry if it makes you feel bad, but it's the truth and I could give a shit what you think of me for saying any of this, because I'd be a worse person for not saying it.

To get back to the original point of this thread, I care deeply about the United States of America and The Constitution that was written to protect our rights from powerful people who would take them away for their own benefit. And I feel that the actions taken by the president and the legislature violate the intention of the three separate branches and the powers given to each in The Constitution. And this offends me to my core. That some members of Congress are less concerned with upholding The Constitution than with how they look to those people who get angry and feel belittled when anyone has the gall to hold disparate beliefs disgusts me.

By the way, my comments to Karen and Emily about caring more for Terri if she were a Muslim terrorist also apply to you. Sorry if it makes you feel bad, but it's the truth and I could give a shit what you think of me for saying any of this, because I'd be a worse person for not saying it.

Are you even slightly curious what it makes me think of you? The first time you wrote it, it told me that you were not interested in an intelligent discussion since it was so out of left field. So I ignored it because it has nothing to do with issues at hand. Now that you've repeated it, I can only assume that you feel like it's a really good point and you really want a response to it. It does make me wonder why some people enjoy guessing what other people will think or feel. Also, the way this is worded ("Muslim terrorist") implies that you think I would view a Muslim terrorist differently than a terrorist of any other religion. Funny enough, such a distinction is actually kind of against the religion I was raised with. Lastly, you harping on this makes me think that you may be quite vulnerable to slight of hand on the political level.

Anyway, I suppose what you were trying to do here was equate removing Terri Shiavo's feeding tube with torture, since I do rather disaggree with torturing people. So the question comes down to what you would call having your body kept alive long after your brain has lost capacity for thought. Perhaps you would call it hope, or salvation. The way it makes me feel to think of it, I kind of want to call it torture. I think it would be act of hope and tenderness to let her die.

So, in conclusion, your comment hasn't made anybody feel bad. Except maybe I feel a little bad for your debate teacher.

Gizmo, I had been starting to think that you posted this to get us all fired up since it's been a little quiet around here lately. And I was all jealous of your high comment count.

Good idea Karen, since we are all a waste of Dude's time anyway, lets get back to the original topic.

But one last thing - Dude, I do know about DR. HAMMESFAHR. I also know he is the only doctor saying that "her chances of recovering are excellent" while the rest of doctors who either testified in the trial or were polled independently in recent days say the only hope she has is a miracle. Thus, his opinion is a statistical outlier, which is why I dont give it much creedence.

Ive been reading a lot about this case over the past few days in the Oregonian. Apparently the original bill penned by Congress was to be much more sweeping than specifically dealing with Terri Schiavo. Enough that the reps. from Oregon were really concerned that our "Death with Dignity" law was going to be undermined. I was glad to hear that we have some reps who understand the importance of the government staying out of people's private lives. Oregon Rep David Wu was instrumental in stalling the vote and in rewriting the law to be more specific to Terri's case.

There was a really good point/counter point article about the trial in the Oregonian last nite. one side and the other side On one hand we have the case that many people here have argued; that the government has no right to make laws because courts dont decide a case in a way they like. On the other had, it was pointed out that (democrats in particular) favor moving criminal cases from state courts to the federal system in this situation, so the writer argues that what is OK for criminals apparently is not for Terri Schiavo. Im not sure if that is the same thing as the Schiavo trial, since this trial was brought before the supreme court three times already. It also talked about how those who are traditionally against things like the death penalty seemed to do a 180 on letting a court decide if a woman would live or die. Anyway, read the articles for youself, I thought they were pretty decent.

Another interesting point, illuminated by this times article, is that conservatives are really split over this ruling, as they are traditionally staunchly against the government comandeering rights from states. I guess this whole administration is intereseting in light of conservatism, since they usually dont favor massive spending either.

Either way, I still think it is alarming that our government overwhelmingly, on both sides of the House, feel that they have the authority to go around the entire court system, including the supreme court. Im beginning to doubt whether or not a living will would even stop them.

I find all this discussion about "killing" rather interesting. Maybe everybody should consider their definition of "life", of "being alive", and of "human life". I guess we can all agree that Terri is alive. A more complex question is whether a brainless body on life support can be considered a human being. We all know that the brain is the center of all cognitive and emotional functions. A body without a brain is therefore just an organic machine devoid of any humanness. Could Terri's body be considered a human being? If her brain is as nonfunctional as all doctors say, my answer would be no, and therefore the issue is not about killing a human.
On the other hand, let's assume for a second that Terri's brain is indeed partially functional. I would like everybody in this conversation to let me know if they would like to spend 15+ years of their life as a vegetating corpse in a hospital room. I really think that permitting a person to spend such a long time in such a state is indeed torture. Maybe starvation is not the best way to terminate a life, but I see no point on indefinitely prolonging what could be a) the life of a brainless corpse or b) the indefinite torture of an inocent human being.

"You can call me hateful and intolerant all day long but it won't matter in heaven."

Isn't that all that matters in heaven? Just checking.

So, I'm going to contribute to this conversation on the presumption that Dude will stop the ad hominem attacks on me and other posters on this board, since I hope it's been made abundantly clear that yes, we all understand his position, and no, it doesn't make any of us feel bad or want to reconsider my entire value systems. Perhaps that is just my ghoulish nature.

I think we all have sympathy for every single person involved in this case, motivations aside. I can see how it would be very difficult for parents to let a child go, and how her husband wants to end her suffering (as I hope my husband would - I'm engaged -woot!) I do believe that money is a huge motivating factor in this particular case, but really, I don't think that's the point.

I don't believe that ending the life of someone who has been in a vegetative state for 17 year and who, by all credible medical evidence, has no chance of recovery is necessarily tantamount to killing. I read someone's eloquent post about this, but unfortunatley for you I lost the link. Basically, she said we are all going to die someday. It's just a fact. Death with dignity is not the worst thing that can happen to Terri Schiavo. Being subpoenaed to testify despite the fact that her cerebral cortex is liquified is insulting to her and the memory of her life.

As has been pointed out, since Terri has no cerebral cortex she cannot feel pain. She is not aware of anything, she cannot remember or want anything, she has essentially no conscious mind. All of the pain and suffering people crow about is a projection, which I think gets to the heart of this case. People are projecting their own desires/values/political goals onto Terri Schiavo, which is repugnant to me.

I have no right to say what should happen to Terri Schiavo, and neither does congress. The only people who can decide are her husband, her legal guardian (don't get me started on the sanctity of marriage) or her parents. The case has been decided repeatedly in the courts. DECIDED again and again, and appealed and dragged out by her family.

What the government has chosen to do with this is, of course, as gizmo suggests, a dangerous precedent. It gives congress a precedent for circumventing the judicial system at the highest level. That is scary to me because, you know, I like the idea that someone is making sure people don't make my personal decisions for me.

OK I hate to prolong this, but I just had to ask about these things, mostly to defend my beliefs from being twisted into a vehicle that condones exploitation and rigorous rule following.

"He didn't preach tolerance for sin, or relieve us of the responsibility of not sinning, he just gave us a way out. A way in which if we STOPPED SINNING, we could find forgiveness through his shed blood."

So we must stop sinning before we can find forgiveness through Christ? Hmm.. I guess youre right Dude, perhaps Ive missed the entire point of Christ. I was ignorant enough to think that through believing in Christ a person is saved, not by works. Guess Paul was wrong about that. So I guess this "new salvation" you speak of means we dont need Christ at all right? I mean if we can stop sinning all on our own what do we need to be saved from?

Also, Christ did tolerate sin. I believe the word you are looking for is "condone." Clearly given the way Jesus reacted to tax collectors and prostitutes (befriending them, breaking bread with them, and most importantly speaking the truth in love to them) he tolerated the sin. He had to, under the premise that "all sin and fall short of the glory of god" As you said he told the adulterer "go and sin no more" Condoning something is far different than tolerating it.

I also have a very hard time believing that Christ would react as you have, elevating himself to judge others and spewing obsceneties at them. True Jesus did get angry, but only on very rare occasions. Considering I am merely voicing my opinion about a completely non religious issue I think his reaction might be somewhat different.

And regarding defending the innocent, who are you to say that letting Terri die instead of prolonging her life as a vegetable isnt defending the innocent? As myself and many others have pointed out, it is obvious that no parties really care about Terri at all, she is just a pawn for political and personal gain.

"He also never once advocated for "mercy killings""

He also never said anything about not having sex before marriage and not allowing Christians to break from the Old Testament law of not wearing clothes made of only one cloth. Do you therefore not believe those things? Not only didnt Christ say those things, they arent even in the Bible. Oh, and he definitely never advocated the death penalty.

I also have a hard time believing Christ would advocate keeping a brain dead woman alive for 15 years to fight over her medicaid money.

and finally:

"Your desire to find any hole in my argument (i.e. the amount of money Terri's husband will be receiving upon her death)to ignore the greater issue speaks volumes for your heart"

Well, when you defend an argument as you have, citing facts from the press, one can only assume you would like to engage in a discourse of such facts. As for your attempts to read something into my opinion about whether or not the government did the right thing you have failed miserably as usual.

Its still interesting to me that I havent said whether I think Terri should live or die and you insist that my words "speak volumes" about my heart.

However I do completely understand your response. I once would have reacted exactly the same way, accusing those with different beliefs about christianity than I of "doctrines of demons" The accusation of "hate and intolerance" may be a cliche, but if the shoe fits, wear it.

Your actions make me realize how I came across to many of my friends during that time, and has inspired me to apologize for my self righteousness. Thank you Dude.

And Dude, I sincerely apologize if my apoligizing for my self righteousness is interpreted as self righteousness towards you.

Mazel tov Emily! If halmark made cards that said, 'If you were in a persistant vegitiative state, you're chosen life-partner would make the correct decision for you,' I would send you one.

Bush let hospitals in Texas end lives over family's objections

for some reason the link doesn't work:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/florida/sfl-abush22mar22,0,4391162.story?coll=sfla-news-florida

that's what I get for trying to be slick.

Lets discuss about discussing.

I have not seen such passionate discussion since my high school health class when abortion came up.

I consider discussions like this one to be pretty ultimate for two reasons.

1.) People attach value to life.
If life doesn't have value what does?

2.) There is a gray area between valuable life and death. (valuable life rather then scientific life)
Almost everyone agrees that mud is dead and that a playing 7 year old is alive. In between are viruses, yeast, wee-beasties, robots, plants, bugs, rats, dogs, dolphins and people in an debatable order. Everyone draws their lines arbitrarily.

JustAGeek, I find the direction you are taking more interesting than personal attacks from crazy dudes. There's a strong pro-"life"/pro-all-is-human strain to this. People on that side have a completely black-and-white view in that anything remotely resembling human is human and anything remotely resembling a living human is a living human... but like Dan would like for us to discuss, there's a range of life and humanity. We haven't found a perfect definition for when something is alive but thus far the courts have at least drawn a line somewhere. I don't think anybody's tried to draw a circle around that which is human outside of which everything else is not, though. Some things I do know are that a lot of our organs are unnecessary and that we can exchange organs with other species or even machines but the brain seems to be something the circle is clearly drawn around... no human brain, no human. Of course that begs the question of how a human brain is defined and we have to draw a line between what's in your and my head and what's in the heads of other mammals. It's interesting to think about how much our brains could be changed without staying human, or thinking about human brains in completely inhuman bodies, or machines that mimic the functionality of our brains exactly... and thinking about killing such machines.

If we assume that her brain is partially functional, I think it matters how partial. There are animals whose brains are probably far more functional than hers, so it matters whether those functions are human-specific functions or the kinds of functions for which we feel it's no loss when we kill other animals with the same functions. On the other hand, if I were in the situation where for 17 years I was not totally dead but I was unable to get anything non-frustrating out of life, I would definitely not be happy. Being kept in a perpetual state of unhappiness for 17+ years is torture. I think the risk that she's been in pain for 17 years is enough to have ended her body's life 17 years ago. The chances that she's conscious and happy aren't enough to justify that risk. One day we'd be able to communicate with her brain in some way and be able to tell whether or not there was any "there" there, and if so, whether she wanted to be kept in this state or not. Until then we leave it up to the doctors to make their best guess, however crude-seeming their methodologies may be.

Oh the Inhumanity! that is being committed with this poor woman and her family. How is it possible that this person should suffer thirst and hunger. Imagine how horrid a feeling we get when we skip lunch cause we're too bussy at work or with the kids. It's unimaginable anyone with a little power should bring forth such for another who can't speak or tell anyone how much she's needing what those who took from her take for granted. I hope and pray for a miracle. It's outrageous! her demise should be from a totally different cause not from starvation.

So you're saying we should use what medical technology we do possess to render her body completely dead. Is she really feeling hunger and thirst though? I think the professional consensus is that there's nothing there to feel it.

How is it possible, Wilma, that the millions of people truly suffering hunger and thirst aren't calling the attention of our vacationing president, etc.? People who we can actually go up to and ask "how much does it hurt?"

Wilma, that's exactly the kind of projection I was talking about. Yeah, it sucks when you skip lunch. However, considering all viable medical opinion on the matter, Terri Schiavo hasn't felt anything, hasn't been able to feel anything, for over 17 years.

I read someone's opinion once upon a time that the ability to desire for the future and analyze/recall the past is what makes a human a human, what seperates us from "animals". That we want or remember different things is what makes us individuals. I can't really decide if I think that's obtuse or poignant and thought-provoking. I guess I want there to be something more mystical about it, but I like the rationality of it.

Fuck you Dan, mud is totally alive.

Woo hoo, it's about time some shit got started here!

Firstly my disclaimer is that I stopped reading 33 posts ago, so ignore me if I'm echoing someone else's comments.

Secondly, let the brain dead bitch die. Or live, I don't give a fuck. Just get her disturbing-ass facial expressions off of CNN and I'll be happy. Why does this even matter? If her family wants to keep some flesh and bones puppet around, more power to them; the real Terry has been dead for a long time.

And how tiny shit like this, some brain dead mother fucker, makes national news, while tens of CONSCIOUS Iraqis die, I'll never understand.

p

Gebble gib gab gibbity goo!

Wow, I sure missed a good one. I was on vacation for this flame war, but I have a couple comments a week late.

First off, in response to Polamex's frustration about the amount of news coverage this received: you would have been amazed at how much the world was watching this story. We had satellite tv in our apartment in Paris, in Europe this means you have stations from many different countries. I saw clip after clip in language after language about this case. The only station I did not see it mentioned on was Al Jazeera. No joke, all I saw was war on it that station. On a completely unrelated note, the French seem to love 50 cent.

On the topic of "life-support": my grandfather passed away a few years ago at the ripe old age of 90. He was not suffering from any particular ailment, his body was just beginning to naturally shut down. Eventually he was on a feeding tube and machines were keeping him alive. When I first learned what taking him off life-support meant, that he would slowly starve over the course of a couple of weeks, I was appalled at the idea.

Then I started thinking about it: the only thing keeping him alive was modern technology. I don't even believe he was in a state that a human could feed him through his mouth.

While I advocate the use of technology in sustaining human life, there is also a point where technology nearly becomes the source of life: when the machines are now vital to the survival of a human.

I don't think taking those machines away is an inhumane choice. I believe it is letting nature do as nature does.

now the Pope has joined the feeding tube club.

They are saying its usually temporary, but what happens if we can keep the pope alive only by a feeding tube? or a feeding tube and a respirator? The pope already makes very few of the decisions that he is usually responsible for. It seems possible that we could end up with a pope on life support.

It seems there is a fine line between "letting nature take its course" and helping the ailing. One one hand it seems like an obstruction of nature to force food into the body of someone who is no longer able to accept it through regular means, but on the other hand it seems inhumae to let an otherwise alive person starve to death. Of course, now we need to define what it means to be alive, as some here have mentioned.

What can initially be used as an aid (as with the feeding tube in the popes case) can quickly become a necessity. Maybe the point when what is intended to aid an activity becomes necessary to do that activity is when nature should be allowed to take its course (?)