Paladin D Posted March 8, 2005 Posted March 8, 2005 [url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7032107/"]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7032107/[/url] March 18th. And some more recent stories [url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/?querytext=Terri+Schiavo&id=3053419&searchfromtoc.x=0&searchfromtoc.y=0&action=fulltext"]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/?querytext=Terri+...action=fulltext[/url] .
jasJis Posted March 8, 2005 Posted March 8, 2005 Just a few comments. The tube will be removed the 18th. It may take a week or more for Terri to die of hunger and thirst. Please go to the FloridaCatholic website and other links to Bishop Lynch and other Bishops. There is more at stake than Terri's life. Sadly, some are using this extremely complicated case to weaken laws that protect us from State intervention that could possibly lead to the State to decide to WITHHOLD life support despite the wishes of a spouse. The Florida Catholic website has links that explain Catholic theology about life and death and how to protect ourselves from State intervention with Life Wills, designating a person to make decisions, etc. This is very important for Catholics. We should not be apathetic and let the State decide these issues and insert themselves between the bond between spouses married sacramentally. Some things are our responsibility, not the Governments.
1337 k4th0l1x0r Posted March 8, 2005 Posted March 8, 2005 Actually, what's truly sad is that March 18th will not be her death date. Starvation takes about a week to kill a person and is said to be excruciatingly painful. I wish Mr. Schiavo would realize his wife is not a dying woman and have himself try to go without food and water for 7 days.
Brother Adam Posted March 8, 2005 Posted March 8, 2005 I could be wrong on this, but is it morally wrong to remove extrodianary means of life support?
jasJis Posted March 8, 2005 Posted March 8, 2005 It [u]may[/u] not be wrong to remove extrodinary life support measures. Ther are many factors to consider. Regardless, food and water, even if given intraveneously, are not considered extraordinary.
Brother Adam Posted March 8, 2005 Posted March 8, 2005 Like I said, I was wondering. I'm still only half way through Moral Principals at school So basically they are going to stop feeding her?
cmotherofpirl Posted March 8, 2005 Posted March 8, 2005 (edited) Yep. They are going to starve her to death: no food or water. The Nazis did it in the death comps quite often. If you did that to a dog you would go to jail. For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world. Edited March 8, 2005 by cmotherofpirl
Brother Adam Posted March 8, 2005 Posted March 8, 2005 (edited) The Nazi spirit is still alive and well in America [url="http://www.100abortionpictures.com/Abortion_Holocaust_Death_Camps/"]http://www.100abortionpictures.com/Abortio...st_Death_Camps/[/url] Edited March 8, 2005 by Brother Adam
jasJis Posted March 8, 2005 Posted March 8, 2005 (edited) This is the link I meant. Not the Florida Catholic newspaper site, but the Florida Catholic Confrence site: [url="http://www.flacathconf.org/health/"]Florida Catholic Confrence / Health Issues[/url] Edited March 8, 2005 by jasJis
cmotherofpirl Posted March 8, 2005 Posted March 8, 2005 You want to read the first statement on life and death.
burnsspivey Posted March 8, 2005 Posted March 8, 2005 Her parents are doing everything they can to destroy the sanctity of their daughter's marriage. Why isn't anyone protesting that?
1337 k4th0l1x0r Posted March 8, 2005 Posted March 8, 2005 [quote name='burnsspivey' date='Mar 8 2005, 01:14 PM'] Her parents are doing everything they can to destroy the sanctity of their daughter's marriage. Why isn't anyone protesting that? [/quote] Where does starving your wife fit into the sanctity of marriage? I can understand pulling the plug on someone who is DYING, but Terri is not dying any more so than you or I am dying.
Jake Huether Posted March 8, 2005 Posted March 8, 2005 [quote name='burnsspivey' date='Mar 8 2005, 01:14 PM'] Her parents are doing everything they can to destroy the sanctity of their daughter's marriage. Why isn't anyone protesting that? [/quote] The sanctity of her marriage was trashed when Terri's hubby started messing with another lady - and having kids with her. This guy surves to lose a lot if Terri is rehabilitated. He has a lot riding on her death. The Shiavo's only wish to preserve the sanctity of Terri's life, the only thing that she has left. May God have mercy on those who partake in her death.
Norseman82 Posted March 8, 2005 Posted March 8, 2005 [quote name='burnsspivey' date='Mar 8 2005, 02:14 PM'] Her parents are doing everything they can to destroy the sanctity of their daughter's marriage. Why isn't anyone protesting that? [/quote] To save her life.....
Paladin D Posted March 8, 2005 Author Posted March 8, 2005 [quote name='burnsspivey' date='Mar 8 2005, 03:14 PM'] Her parents are doing everything they can to destroy the sanctity of their daughter's marriage. Why isn't anyone protesting that? [/quote] You got to be kidding me...
jasJis Posted March 8, 2005 Posted March 8, 2005 Burnspivey has a point. The parents are usurping the sanctity of the marriage bond. One also has to consider how the husband had also betrayed the sanctity of marriage. Now the problem is can we allow the Government to intercede without opening a pandora's box and allow the Government too much interferring power and we can never recover the freedom of religion we had?
1337 k4th0l1x0r Posted March 8, 2005 Posted March 8, 2005 [quote name='jasJis' date='Mar 8 2005, 03:01 PM'] Burnspivey has a point. The parents are usurping the sanctity of the marriage bond. One also has to consider how the husband had also betrayed the sanctity of marriage. Now the problem is can we allow the Government to intercede without opening a pandora's box and allow the Government too much interferring power and we can never recover the freedom of religion we had? [/quote] The sanctity (literally, 'holiness') of marriage was usurped first by Mr. Schiavo. He has pretty much spat upon every line of his marriage vow. I think the proper solution would be for an ecclesiastical court to step in and see if the marriage can be annulled. It would be interesting to see if they could step in here or if it would be a violation of canon law. Anybody know?
burnsspivey Posted March 8, 2005 Posted March 8, 2005 [quote name='Jake Huether' date='Mar 8 2005, 03:07 PM'] The sanctity of her marriage was trashed when Terri's hubby started messing with another lady - and having kids with her. This guy surves to lose a lot if Terri is rehabilitated. He has a lot riding on her death. The Shiavo's only wish to preserve the sanctity of Terri's life, the only thing that she has left. May God have mercy on those who partake in her death. [/quote] This may be true, however her parents were the first to violate. It was 1993 when her parents filed their first motion and not until 1997 that his engagement was announced (according to her parents' site). I'm not arguing for what he did, I'm simply pointing out facts.
1337 k4th0l1x0r Posted March 8, 2005 Posted March 8, 2005 We must also keep in mind that just because a woman (or man) gets married doesn't mean her parents stop loving her. If a child is in an abusive marriage the parents should do what it takes to either mend the marriage so it's not abusive or get the wife separated from the husband. Starving a wife is considered abusive.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now