|
|
Post by Pure on Apr 1, 2005 22:10:18 GMT -5
The Debate question is: What should happen about the lady that is braindead? Should the tubes be left unconnected? Should she be immediatle be killed? Should the parents just pay fir care of their daughter? Should the lady's husband get to decide what happens?
RULES:
-Everyone may post
-please, contestants, stay on topic!
-No time limit between posts, debate ends in one week and a poll is held to determine the winner. Each debate winner gets a 25 post boost
Moderators: bfr, proton, vladik
BFR:
I think that the parents shoud just pay to keep the lady alive if they relally want her to live, or else, the husband should decide...maybe.
|
|
|
|
Post by bcherry on Apr 2, 2005 1:24:14 GMT -5
Uh, doesn't anyone read the news? Terri Schiavo died yesterday....
Regardless, the courts were correct in removing her feeding tubes. She very likely had no cognition, nor would she have wanted to be kept alive like that. The funny thing is, Tom DeLay, Senate Majority Leader, has been hypocritical through this whole affair. When he was a junior Congressman 10 or 20 years ago, his father had a terrible accident at his work, and was essentially braindead in the hospital, and Tom DeLay and his family chose not to intervene, and to let the father die, because "he wouldn't have wanted to live like that." Yet now, when the whole conservative christian part of America is looking on, DeLay admonishes Micheal Schiavo for wanting the tubes removed, saying "This is completely different from when my father was in the same situation" even though it must be clear it is not. The real difference is that the Republican party is today held together and held in power by the conservative christian vote, and they must do what the christians want to keep themselves where they are.
|
|
|
|
Post by bfr on Apr 2, 2005 9:03:39 GMT -5
I read the news every other day pretty much. You might be right (that is a surprize  ). |
|
|
|
Post by Pure on Apr 2, 2005 9:20:38 GMT -5
Uh, doesn't anyone read the news? Terri Schiavo died yesterday.... Regardless, the courts were correct in removing her feeding tubes. She very likely had no cognition, nor would she have wanted to be kept alive like that. The funny thing is, Tom DeLay, Senate Majority Leader, has been hypocritical through this whole affair. When he was a junior Congressman 10 or 20 years ago, his father had a terrible accident at his work, and was essentially braindead in the hospital, and Tom DeLay and his family chose not to intervene, and to let the father die, because "he wouldn't have wanted to live like that." Yet now, when the whole conservative christian part of America is looking on, DeLay admonishes Micheal Schiavo for wanting the tubes removed, saying "This is completely different from when my father was in the same situation" even though it must be clear it is not. The real difference is that the Republican party is today held together and held in power by the conservative christian vote, and they must do what the christians want to keep themselves where they are. I agree. And first of all, what life would she have living on a feeding tube for the rest of her life and being braindead? Well, the Republican party is mostly fueled by christian voters, but sooner or later they will evolve past that. It is supposed to be more "ethical" to keep a person alive, in religion's eyes. This whole case is really a debate of what ethics really are. And yes, though Schaivo is dead, people are still debating about it, so why shouldn't we? |
|
|
|
Post by bfr on Apr 2, 2005 9:35:46 GMT -5
Good point. One person said that they might be able to make the person not braindead anymore so the lady should of been kept alive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pure on Apr 2, 2005 11:46:50 GMT -5
improper grammar, it is "should have". However, the chances of reversing the braindead effect were incredibly low. However, this case is interesting because there is no "wrong" side. If you think from a parent's point of view, would you want your child to just die? And from a husband's point of view, yoiu knew what your wife wanted. However, your point of view is criticized by everyone else and you are even called the devil by some. Both are right, but I have to take Michael Schaivo's side.
|
|
|
|
Post by bfr on Apr 2, 2005 11:49:21 GMT -5
What if the husband just wanted his wife's money or something?
|
|
|
|
Post by bcherry on Apr 2, 2005 14:31:39 GMT -5
He probably did. He currently has a girlfriend and two kids with her, though he was still married to terri. Regardless of his motives, Terri should not have been kept alive. I feel it is now up to the courts to decide whether Micheal should recieve her properties, but he probably should. Even though he had a new girl, he was married to Terri, and you cannot expect him not to find someone after 15 years with his wife braindead, and I don't think Terri would have been too upset with Micheal over it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pure on Apr 2, 2005 16:27:05 GMT -5
I agree, but I don't think he wanted his wife's money the most, and that's why he wanted her to die, but he should recieve her properties.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vladik on Apr 4, 2005 17:44:10 GMT -5
Would she have wanted to live out her life with feeding tubes?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pure on Apr 4, 2005 17:45:10 GMT -5
I think not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vladik on Apr 4, 2005 18:01:07 GMT -5
Me too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pure on Apr 7, 2005 18:10:05 GMT -5
Pretty short debate, i'll end it. See the poll to vote who won.
|
|
