There IS a difference between withholding aggressive treatment that simply prolongs an otherwise inevitable dying process and euthanasia, whether the euthanasia comes in the form of withholding non-aggressive treatment for someone who is not otherwise dying (Terri) or casuig death through lethal injection or whatever. This difference outweighs all the similarities you mention.

Your position seems to be: it’s all euthanasia, and euthanasia is ok. LB is simply saying, no, there is a distinction, and the things on one side of the distinction are ok and the things on the other aren’t. Perfectly reasonable.

It seems to me that yuo can tell others not to judge behavior or action X only when you’ve already made up your mind that X is ok. Well, some people disagree, and instead of hysterically dismissing them, you ought to provide an argument and not just a tirade, to show that everything is euthanasia and euthanasia is ok.

Cheers.

Adrian

Thanks, pal.

A.

I was catching up at La Shawn Barber’s Corner after a few days’ absence and ran across “Death Culturists Say Michael Schiavo ‘Vindicated’.” I high-fived my monitor when La Shawn pointed out that manner in which Terri…

http://www.lifeissues.net/news.php?newsID=00011202&topic=eu

In BOTH cases, a decision ws made not to put off death via more medical treatment. In BOTH cases, the patients could have been kept alive longer than they were. The only significant moral difference here is that LaShawn has chosen, for reasons entirely her own, to cling to her previous hateful position on one case, and not to admit any link to any similar cases that might threaten to undermine her shaky position.

As for the “Nazi” quotes, they are all over the dittosphere, and you know it.

One more remark like that about me, and you’re gone, “Josephus.” Lord only knows why I’ve put up with it this long. Comment on the subject WITHOUT referring to me. – Admin

…82% of somebody may have been horrified by what they were misled (by the MSM) into believing was unconstitutional….but somehow that 82% never includes me or anyone I have ever known. I am very skeptical about the proper randomness of samples in media polls.

FACT: Congress did not act outside its constitutional authority in ASKING the appeals courts to consider ordering a de novo or “new” look at the original heresay evidence provided by Michael Schiavo, his brother, and his sister-in-law.

Perhaps Congress felt that the Schindler family and all of their witnesses should not have been initially dismissed out of hand as not credible in the initial evidentiary hearings. I know I felt that way and I vote.

Every legal challenge after the first court decision did not re-evaluate or review the alleged evidence of Terri’s wishes. All the appellate courts did was rule on procedural due process (i.e. did the prior court handle procedure according to the established processes of law). (Unfortunately, the very letter of the law can be followed, thus destroying any chance for successful appeal, and still not provide justice…. as many an innnocent but executed persons, could tell you….IF they were here to speak.)

Therefore all the Schindlers’ challenges were doomed. All they did was postpose the inevitable. And the real crime of it all was that Terri never has her OWN legal representation. MS had his, parents had theirs, Terri never had her own. Now, that IS a right guaranteed by our Constitution.

I have heard liberals defend Michael, saying…he just couldn’t let her go; benevolently tried all means of rehab in the early years; and only after exhausting all hope, finally threw in the towel and decided to follow her wishes! Well…we don’t have our cake and eat it too! If you choose to believe that MS is an intransigent man of integrity, then please explain to me why was he not a stand up guy and HONEST about HER wishes from the get-go?

Mr. Schaivo has always “smelled” real fishy to me because he flip-flopped on his expressed intentions and contradicted himself so many times over the years. It’s hard to believe he is an honest man. Time will tell if he is the hero that some make him out to be–or simply the pawn of a “euthanasia” interest group that found themselves a stupid patsy.

One of the most intriguing things about this whole affiar to me has been the MSM’s STANGE and UNCHARACTERISTIC restraint in their treatment of Ms. Centonze and the children? Why such scant information..and why no photos? (All other famous and notorious people have to resort to armed body guards to keep the paparazzi from publishing pics of them changing their children’s diapers or taking a whiz) The lack of MSM publicity about MS’ “other” family is just plumb strange! It ain’t natural..unless…of course…the MSM have some agenda…

For example right now, two are currently intervening in a deportation case where an American died in Iraq and BCIS wnts to send his widow back to Bosnia, even tho she promised him she would take care of his 12 year old son. IIRC, Durbin and Obama are moving to make her a permanent citizen.

So where’s the hypocrisy?

“Two years ago my father died from Alzheimer’s. But what he really died from was dehydration. In other words, as the disease progressed he lost the ability to feed himself. We could have gone to great lengths to prolong his life, including nourishing him intravenously, but we judged it was his time.”

LaShawn explicitly — and immediately — said that this was not “murder,” and had no harsh words for this respondent. Please tell us why this is different from Terri’s case.

And I suppose the parents who knowingly and repeatedly bore false witness against Mr. Schiavo, and took active measures to misrepresent Terri’s condition to the public and elected officials, were perfectly good Catholics?