Commanders Post at The Warpath - View Single Post

Schneed10 · 03-24-2005, 03:15 PM

Argument #1: If life were running it's natural course in Terri's case, she would die of starvation because she is incapable of feeding herself. So if we're sticking to God's plan (in the case of a religious argument) he apparently wanted her to die by starvation. He was ready to take her soul to a better place, but we here on Earth are keeping her here by feeding her.

Argument #2: It was God's plan for Terri to fall into a vegetative state and for us here on Earth to keep her alive in that state indefinitely. By removing the feeding tube, we're going against God's wishes for her to remain alive. He'll take her soul when he's good and ready, and until then we should keep her alive.

As you can see, those are two completely conflicting viewpoints based on varying perceptions of what God's plans are. Problem is, NOBODY KNOWS what God's real plan is for her. So in my opinion, basing any decision regarding Terri's life on religion is completely wrong. Religion needs to stay out of the equation, because religion is open to too many interpretations.

I also don't care if the husband is a sleezebag. He probably is a sleezebag, and that's why the parents needed to step in to begin with. If he was a good guy, the parents and him probably could have sat down and worked things out. But the bottom line is this case went to the courts and by a preponderance of the evidence it was revealed that dying was what Terri would have wanted. When it comes down to it, the parents could not present any evidence that Terri would have wanted to live in this state. The husband was able to make his case, and the courts ruled that Terri would have wanted to die. That's the bottom line, this case should be decided based on what she would have wanted.

It's heart wrenching for her to have to die this way. But from a purely scientific standpoint, her brain is already dead. She's just a ball of neurological reflexes at this point. You could argue that there is a soul in there, but that would be a religious argument, open to too many interpretations, and has no place in our court system.

03-24-2005, 03:15 PM	#29
Schneed10 A Dude Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Newtown Square, PA Age: 46 Posts: 12,458	Re: Terri Schiavo Argument #1: If life were running it's natural course in Terri's case, she would die of starvation because she is incapable of feeding herself. So if we're sticking to God's plan (in the case of a religious argument) he apparently wanted her to die by starvation. He was ready to take her soul to a better place, but we here on Earth are keeping her here by feeding her. Argument #2: It was God's plan for Terri to fall into a vegetative state and for us here on Earth to keep her alive in that state indefinitely. By removing the feeding tube, we're going against God's wishes for her to remain alive. He'll take her soul when he's good and ready, and until then we should keep her alive. As you can see, those are two completely conflicting viewpoints based on varying perceptions of what God's plans are. Problem is, NOBODY KNOWS what God's real plan is for her. So in my opinion, basing any decision regarding Terri's life on religion is completely wrong. Religion needs to stay out of the equation, because religion is open to too many interpretations. I also don't care if the husband is a sleezebag. He probably is a sleezebag, and that's why the parents needed to step in to begin with. If he was a good guy, the parents and him probably could have sat down and worked things out. But the bottom line is this case went to the courts and by a preponderance of the evidence it was revealed that dying was what Terri would have wanted. When it comes down to it, the parents could not present any evidence that Terri would have wanted to live in this state. The husband was able to make his case, and the courts ruled that Terri would have wanted to die. That's the bottom line, this case should be decided based on what she would have wanted. It's heart wrenching for her to have to die this way. But from a purely scientific standpoint, her brain is already dead. She's just a ball of neurological reflexes at this point. You could argue that there is a soul in there, but that would be a religious argument, open to too many interpretations, and has no place in our court system.