Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Terry Schaivo

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 06:33:36 -0800

In a message dated 3/20/05 8:52:31 P.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--- In [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 3/20/05 7:54:22 P.M. Central Standard Time, 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> One guy  stated,the "bible clearly says, 'thou shalt not kill'".
> Larry King said,  "Then you don't beleive in capital punishment?"
> I couldn't believe it but  the guy said that the bible also
clearly
> states that man is given that  responsibility (to kill) Gad, made
no
> sense to me. It seems the bible can  be quoted to say whatever the
> hell you want it to  say.
>
>
>
> Clearly the difference is innocent life and life that is  guilty
of a heinous
> crime. The Torah, Bible, makes this  distinction.

The problem is that not everyone (including myself) believes the
Bible to be the word of God. Even if everyone agreed that the bible
was the word of god,it can be interpreted many ways. It is pretty
funny to see all these hypocritical attitudes that  give clauses and
exceptions to the commandment "thou shalt not kill". There is a
difference in murder and "allowing" someone to die with dignity and
grace. How can someone insist that another take some specific
treatment to prolong their life? (including food) Who has that right?
Say, like my grandfather, you were gonna die within a few months
anyway. Why would anyone insist on having prostate surgery(did i
spell it right Ken?) and chemo too? If someone is old and in pain,
why can't people just let them go?
There was a great book, true story about a family with a child with
anorexia. The family did EVERYTHING they could. The child was put in
a hospital and fed through tubes. The girl was so adamant that she
didn't want to eat that her body supported her request and clogged
and rejected the tubes so she could not eat. The one thing the
family had not done was to LET GO. This was the whole lesson,
letting go. The family finally decided that it was really the girls
decision and let her chose. After that, she started eating.
Intersting story, I don't think I could have let go, but fascinating.
Everyone tries to play god. But everyone is their own god, that
means you honor the god in the other person. This is what namaste
means: "I bow down to the God in you"




And my response was to the paragraph that I had clearly hi-lighted. Whether you believe that the Bible is the word of God or not is irrelevant. The issue is whether a person can be put to death based upon somebody's word that "they would not like to live like this". That is hear say! Without a living will with direct instructions from Terri, She should have the benefit of the protection of the constitution which not only protects the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but also legal representation. Terri is not dyeing of some terminal disease but rather has a handicap and thus deserves every protection of her constitutional rights  that you and I take for granted. It really is too bad she did not leave a will with instructions on how a matter like this should be resolved. She may want to die and then again she may want to continue living. It's not anybody else's right to decide. But the constitution is meant to protect the right to a person's life and once we start looking for exceptions to that rule we are heading down a very slippery slope. And if you haven't noticed, we  have already started down that slope. Where does it end and Who decides when it ends? Does it even end?

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
click here

Yahoo! Groups Links

Reply via email to