Welcome Christians to My Livejournal

You might enjoy the discussion I am having with a young Christian lady on my entry about Terry Schiavo's death. I certainly am. Unfortunately, it seems that that entry upset her.

Edited to add:

This is as good a time as any to mention a strange remark Bill Putt made the other day. "Matt," he said, "for an atheist, you're the best Christian I have ever known." Naturally I was surprised by this. He says I kept the good teachings and discarded the bad ones. What a nice thing to say, I guess! If Jesus had been born 2000 years later than he was, I'll bet he'd be an atheist.

Comments

rikhei on Apr. 12, 2005 4:27 PM

I believe there's a term for people like her: troll. I thought your responses to her were eloquent.

sibbidy on Apr. 12, 2005 5:01 PM

Main Entry: 1troll
Pronunciation: 'trOl
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English
transitive senses
1 : to cause to move round and round : ROLL
2 a : to sing the parts of (as a round or catch) in succession b : to sing loudly c : to celebrate in song
3 a : to fish for by trolling b : to fish by trolling in c : to pull through the water in trolling
intransitive senses
1 : to move around : RAMBLE
2 : to fish by trailing a lure or baited hook from a moving boat
3 : to sing or play in a jovial manner
4 : to speak rapidly
- troll·er noun

Thanks, I am singing in a jovial manner at people who take offense at someone just because they have different beliefs.

matt-arnold on Apr. 12, 2005 5:07 PM

I think does not consider you a troll because of what your beliefs happen to be, but because you made no attempt to relate to what was being said in the discussion. Non-trollish posts contribute something that others will be interested in reading, such as light-hearted fun, a reasoned-out insight, a personal experience, a question, etc.

I'm happy to engage in conversation with monotheists, empiricists, pantheists, rationalists, naturalists, panentheists, non-theists, deists, agnostics, fideists, mystics, entheogenists and dogmatic fundamentalists from all walks of life. I sincerely welcome Christian points of view on my livejournal, but you have not offered a point of view on the Terry Schaivo case. And if you were to offer it, she still have not said what her reasons were. It's less of a troll, perhaps, and more of a drive-by or guerilla-style hit-and-run post. I don't mind though. Fire away.

sibbidy on Apr. 12, 2005 5:13 PM

Hardly a hit and run- I'm still here.
Rather than asking me to expound, you simply attacked. I think I get it- you're a completely open-minded person ready and willing to firing down anyone else's point of view.

sibbidy on Apr. 12, 2005 5:19 PM

Regarding Ms. Schaivo, I think there were too many unanswered questions for them to pull out her tube. I don't understand why they couldn't wait and exhaust all options first- like the speech pathologist that was willing to donate her time because she believed Terri could be rehabilitated. There are more people than just the parents that were standing in her defense that had nothing to gain from it. It was a case with too much speculation, but the death was hurried and carried out before all resources were exhausted. It just scares me when judges take life into their hands and try to play God with it.

twoofdtm on Apr. 12, 2005 5:26 PM

but the death was hurried and carried out before all resources were exhausted.

Hurried and carried out? How long was that woman on those tubes for crying out loud. I remember reading (and I'll admit I didn't follow this case that closely but I heard/read/saw alot from different sources) that people had offered alternatives to try and help her live. The Terry that her family and friends remembered was dead the second her brain shut down. They were loving and fighting for a husk of a body.

I do have to agree with this statment though. It just scares me when judges take life into their hands and try to play God with it. I don't necessarily believe they're playing God but I do believe that they take some peoples lives and completely trod over them.

sibbidy on Apr. 12, 2005 5:30 PM

But she only received therapy for 2 years after the incident, and then it all stopped as soon as Michael Schaivo won the 1 million dollar lawsuit to pay for her care and therapy. Only after receiving this money did he commit her to the home and stop her therapy- during which her doctors said she was making noticeable improvement. Of course if she's just lying there she's not going to improve, but when she was receiving therapy she was improving. So why not reinstate her therapy and if nothing happens in like say a year or something, then decide what to do.

rikhei on Apr. 13, 2005 2:54 PM

Do you have any sources to back this up?

brendand on Apr. 13, 2005 12:05 PM

I don't understand why they couldn't wait and exhaust all options first

I can't imagine what it would have been like to be her husband and have people sit there and say things like this. It had been FIFTEEN YEARS. Her medical bills were in the millions. Do you honestly believe they hadn't run all the tests they could in FIFTEEN YEARS?!

sibbidy on Apr. 13, 2005 12:25 PM

No because her husband refused to provide her with the therapy that she was making improvement in before he won the lawsuit.

Her husband never saw a medical bill- it was all paid for by her lawsuit.

brendand on Apr. 13, 2005 12:27 PM

How much improvement can she be making when part of her brain is liquid?

And he didn't see a medical bill until after the million ran out. Which it did. And if he were in it for the money, wouldn't he be the one with a book deal, rather than her parents?

sibbidy on Apr. 13, 2005 12:29 PM

Give it time.

If her brain is just liquid, why was she making improvement before he cut her off?

brendand on Apr. 13, 2005 12:31 PM

I didn't say it was just liquid. I said part of it was liquid. Please pay attention. Details make the difference.

She could have improved a little, perhaps. But she could not have made a recovery to where she would have been able to take care of herself (nor anything close to it).

sibbidy on Apr. 13, 2005 12:33 PM

So anyone who can't take care of themselves should be starved and dehydrated to death? Everyone with a severe disability or handicap- get in line!

brendand on Apr. 13, 2005 12:33 PM

No. But again, you're missing the point.

sibbidy on Apr. 13, 2005 12:37 PM

Enlighten me.
To me, the point is, people want to play God, and point a finger and say, "Hey, you're no longer contributing to society, we're going to pull your plug."
What makes us the judge of that?
That's how Hitler worked too. You have a disability, you're gone. You can't help yourself, see ya. What about defending people who can't fight for themselves?

brendand on Apr. 13, 2005 12:46 PM

If you want to talk about others playing God, she would have died a long time ago. Medical science is what kept her alive. If no one had ever come up with the idea and process of inserting a feeding tube into her stomach directly, then she would have died years ago, as she could not swallow. Thus the doctors were already playing God. It isn't logical to say people are playing God when they remove the feeding tube unless you also accept that those same people were playing God when they inserted the tube in the first place.

Hitler did work that way. But this is entirely different. Doctors examined her. Several. Not just one or two. I don't know the exact number, but I'm sure there were many specialists consulted. The process worked the way it's supposed to. If people are constantly overruling each other's decisions, we'd have anarchy. A decision was reached after years of consideration. It was a sound decision. It was completed.

sibbidy on Apr. 13, 2005 12:51 PM

She could swallow. If she couldn't, she would have been drooling, and she wasn't. The feeding tube was a way to make the nurses work easier at the home. Rather than sitting there for a tedious hour and a half to two hours while they fed her, they hook up the bag of food and let it go. The parents were willing to care for her and feed her by mouth but Michael Schaivo said no. The judge didn't just order the feeding tube removed- he ordered that no one ever bring her food or water BY MOUTH! Furthermore, anyone who did bring her food and water to ingest through her mouth would be held in contempt of court and arrested. The feeding tube was not necessary for her to live- it was to help the nurses get their job done faster and more cost efficiently.

dianak on Apr. 13, 2005 1:20 PM

You know, I'm all about people having their own opinions about things, and respecting them and not trying to bring them over "to the dark side" so to speak... and with a topic like this, there is no right or wrong, only shades of grey. But how insulting is it to compare a situation where a wife's husband, her next of kin, makes a decision to NOT play god any further by removing an artificial source of life to hitler, a man who didn't kill handicaps, didn't kill non-contributing members of society, but performed heinous acts of "ethnic cleansing"?

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm not saying Matt's right. There is no right or wrong here. Obviously, there's a large contingent of people who think that someone with a liquid brain stem, someone who automatically does some things at SOME times but not in a consistent manner, and not on command (like blinking or swallowing, or making noises) can improve, and there is a large contingent of people who think that a stroke victim declared brain dead and evaluated by the experts in the appropriate fields as non-rehabitable can't. Who is to say who is right or wrong? No one, but the decision of what to do with that poor woman was no one's business but the husband's. Not the parents, not the community, not the church, not the courts. It's unfortunate that the courts had to intervene in order to uphold decisions of next of kin, but that's how it is. If you think this is wrong, join up with the rest of the legions of people who want the laws change, and do what you think you should do to change the laws.

I know it sounds callous and cold-hearted when people say they should have let her pass away peacefully after her stroke (brought on by bulimia, but no one mentions that, a great way to make an awareness on a national scale to eating disorders but noooooooooooo....) and all the specialists said that there was no return from this, but you have to listen to people smarter than you and make an opinion based on what they tell you, if they are experts in that field.

I had to think about all of this 12 years ago, my entire family did, when my older sister collapsed on the bathroom floor, almost bleeding to death. I was in a hit-and-run pedestrian vs. auto accident a year ago, I'd hope that if it had turned out worse (thank providence it didn't) my parents would talk to all experts in the field, get advice from those they consider smarter than them, counseling by those that were closest, before making a decision to "play god" to insert feeding tubes and life support, or to remove it. If I were married, though, I would hope that my parents would defer to my husband. If he asked their opinion, and it was different from his opinion, I would hope that they would understand that in the end, it's HIS decision, and not take him to the courts to fight for my life when experts state that I'm brain dead, my brain stem is liquified, and so on.

While it's easy to discuss things in the abstract or with regards to people who aren't directly in your life, I certainly hope you are never in the position to have to think about these things for someone in your life in a very concrete manner. It's one of the hardest things to do, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Dragging it out like it was, though, was completely inconsiderate for all involved. Emotional items like this are way too difficult in the short term, but in the longer sense, it makes it even harder to recover and continue on with life for those who are still living.

sibbidy on Apr. 13, 2005 1:31 PM

Hitler started out on a smaller scale- it wasn't from nothing to ethnic cleansing. He began one life at a time.

And what about if there are conflicting reports from equally qualified doctors? Wouldn't you air on the side of caution? I'm well aware that they THINK her collapse was brought on by bulimia, but no one ever came to a concrete decision about that either- in fact, when the police were called to the house the night of the collapse, their report said 'suspected homicide'.
If you're saying you would be fine with your husband making that decision even if he was already living with another woman and had 2 children with her, fine. But not everyone feels that way, and because there was so much speculation about the case, I think it was handled poorly and all avenues were not properly investigated. Personally, I don't think he should have been called her husband anymore. He had a common law marriage to another woman- you can't be married to 2 women at once, therefore, I feel the decision should have gone to her parents to take care of her and try to rehabilitate her.
I totally respect the way you feel, and your opinion. Mine just happens to differ. You're right, there doesn't seem to be a clear cut answer to this case- and there are probably things that both sides agree on.
The point is, I want to fight now for the world I someday will have to raise my own children in. If I disagree with it, then yes, I will fight for changing of laws or judicial reform or whatever it takes to create an environment I want to bring a life into.

rikhei on Apr. 13, 2005 3:04 PM

I'm a little confused as to why you would compare the removal of one person's feeding tube to Hitler's elimination of German and Polish Jews (not to mention a variety of other groups). While I concede that they both vaguely relate to the topic of euthanasia, they seem vastly different in both execution and scale. For example: compare the cruelty of removing one's feeding tube to the cruelty of having your friends and family torn from you, being forced into overcrowded boxcars, being forced to work while knowing that if you couldn't work you would be killed, and finally being gassed and thrown into a mass grave whether you were dead at that point or not. I think it entirely disrespectful to compare the starvation of someone who was not aware even aware of her own starvation to that kind of horror.
Furthermore, Terry Schiavo is one person. Hitler was responsible for the deaths of 6 million people. Do you have any reason or evidence to suggest that the United States is currently or at any time ever will be practicing euthanasia on a scale that large?

sibbidy on Apr. 13, 2005 3:07 PM

How do you think it all started?

rikhei on Apr. 13, 2005 3:21 PM

Well, at a guess? I'd say that the targeted murdering of certain groups began with the Night of the Long Knives. I don't know of any incident the history of the Holocaust that mirrors the case of Terry Schiavo - do you know of one?

sibbidy on Apr. 13, 2005 12:30 PM

He said in the ABC interview that he did that he had never seen a medical bill. Not one.

rikhei on Apr. 13, 2005 2:54 PM

Do you have any sources to back this up?

sibbidy on Apr. 13, 2005 2:57 PM

Straight from the horse's mouth.

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=584124&page=2
SCHIAVO: She had — I haven't received any bills from it, so I couldn't tell you how much it would cost.

rikhei on Apr. 13, 2005 3:05 PM

Yay! Thank you.

rikhei on Apr. 13, 2005 2:53 PM

Sounds like you have a problem with our judicial system. What are you going to do about it?

sibbidy on Apr. 13, 2005 2:57 PM

Whatever I can. Write letters, vote for people who uphold similar beliefs and pray for this country.

rikhei on Apr. 13, 2005 3:06 PM

Sounds like a good idea. (No, I'm not being sarcastic.)

dawnwolf on Apr. 13, 2005 7:49 PM

It scares me more when fundies try to take everyone's lives in their hands. Everyone who stood outside of that hospice, and every member of Congress who voted to put the case into the hands of the Federal courts, and W. himself, ought to spend a year changing the diapers and cleaning the bed sores of human bodies that have been reduced to the state that Ms. Shiavo's had been reduced to.
The judges didn't play God with anything or anyone. They did what the law required of them; they judged that Michael Schiavo, and only Michael Schiavo, had the right to make the decision he did.
Culture of Life/TM my ass. It's a culture of control, fostered by people whose view of God is too small; by control freaks and small-minded hypocrites with nothing better to do.

matt-arnold on Apr. 12, 2005 5:31 PM

Please quote the words of my attack. Looking over what I wrote there, I don't see it.

sibbidy on Apr. 12, 2005 5:35 PM

"Oh. I see. I warmly invite you to visit my blog often and pray. Perhaps you can post a prayer about your grandmother's health in my next blog entry. This will be an ongoing feature of my livejournal. I haven't got your god on my livejournal friends list, or Allah or Buddha either, but I'm sure they read it anyway. My livejournal will serve as the conduit between you and your god.

Bow your heads and close your eyes everybody, Sarah is here. Then afterward we will return to actually sharing our views and differences to each other. But Sarah will not express her views to us, she'll just open my livejournal entry with a word of prayer.

Sounds good. How about it?"

If you have a view to offer about my grandmother, what is it? Do you have any arguments to offer to support your view? Or just a comment about something totally unrelated with no reasons?

matt-arnold on Apr. 12, 2005 5:45 PM

Wow, if that's what you consider an "attack," living day-to-day life must feel like World War III.

rikhei on Apr. 12, 2005 5:50 PM

I'm a little confused as to why you think he "simply attacked." The passage you quoted was not his first response to you, but his third. I am at a loss to understand how you could think that the below is an attack:

Sibbidy, Jesus said when you pray, to do so in your closet, not on a street corner. So if you are a Christian, why have you come on a livejournal full of unbelievers and spoken this prayer for mercy where only they can hear you? If you have a view to offer, what is it? Do you have any arguments to offer to support your view? Or just a rebuke with no reasons?

Instead of answering his question - namely why you would choose to respond to the journal of a stranger in a potentionally inflammatory fashion - you avoided his question by stating that his journal was public. While I can't disagree with the fact that Matt has left his journal public, that doesn't answer the question as to why you chose to comment on his journal. Surely he is not the only atheist with public journal entries you disagree with. Surely there are also public journal entries that evidence beliefs more similar to the ones you hold.

This is why I think you a troll, and I was thinking specifically of this definition: One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.

If you're not posting here to cause maximum disruption and argument, I apologize, but you have shown myself and others little to suggest that you're here with good intentions.

sibbidy on Apr. 12, 2005 6:14 PM

LoL. I was only trying to cause maximum disruption and argument.
The mere mention of God does that with some people.

rikhei on Apr. 12, 2005 8:29 PM

I guess three paragraphs was a little much for you to process, so I'll try to frame the question (the one you've been avoiding?) in short, simple words:

Why would you comment on a stranger's journal when your views are so different?

Please see the former comment as to why "Oh, his journal's public." is not a real answer.

sibbidy on Apr. 13, 2005 11:20 AM

Is that not ok? Is an opposing view too much for you to handle?

rikhei on Apr. 13, 2005 2:32 PM

I think I'm just going to stop asking you why you're here, since you don't seem to want to answer the question. But I will respond to your questions:

Is that not okay? > Sure, it's okay for you to hang out on a journal of someone with opposing views, in principle. (And in practice, obviously Matt's fine with you being here.) It's just that generally, people tend to prefer the company of people they have something in common with. Since you've done exactly the opposite, I'm confused. I admit it; you might not be a troll. You might be like my brother, who reads politically conservative blogs (he's a liberal) in order to expand his mind.

But if that's the case, I don't think the way you introduced yourself was the right way to go about it. Saying "God, have mercy on this country." expresses a disdain for Matt's opinion, and that's really all it does. (Which seems rude to me.) You're allowed to disagree, of course! I don't agree with everything Matt has to say, either. But I think your your comment would probably have earned more respect if you'd elaborated on why you disagreed. Matt's original entry had a lot of individual points you could disagree with - very early in the entry he states that Terry Schiavo was not different in any way than she had been for the last 15 years. There you go. That's one point. You could have said, "Hi, I'm sibbidy, I just happened across your journal. I don't agree with your thoughts on Schiavo, specifically where you state that Schiavo was not different in any way than she had been for the last 15 years. This is why I disagree with you..." and so on for however much of the entry you disagreed with.

I think that essentially answers your other question; no, opposing views are not too much for me to handle. I do prefer them, however, to be as politely worded as possible (especially when you're just entering the discussion) and backed up by reason and evidence. You come across as neither polite nor reasoned in your initial response.

sibbidy on (None)

sibbidy on Apr. 13, 2005 11:56 AM

"namely why you would choose to respond to the journal of a stranger in a potentionally inflammatory fashion"

Potentially inflammatory? To say that it is my belief that God should have mercy on our country? Explain how that is inflammatory. And if it is a public journal- which it is- am I not welcome to share my thoughts and beliefs on the subject? Since it is Matt's journal after all, if he doesn't like me being here, he can ask me to leave. And so far he hasn't. So if you want to moderate a journal so badly, moderate your own.

Matt told me he has friends that are Christians. I wonder if they're supposed to watch every word they say and make sure it doesn't have anything about God in it, because otherwise they're being "inflammatory". If that's all it takes for you to become inflamed, it's a small wonder you haven't snapped by now.

If you're so comfortable with what you believe, why is it that one little post about God from someone who you don't even know that makes no difference in your life one way or another- gets you so upset over one little comment?

rikhei on Apr. 13, 2005 2:51 PM

What does your belief in God needing to have mercy on our country have to do with the death of Terry Schiavo? If you'd explained that in your initial message, maybe I would feel less incensed.

And yes, we've discussed the fact that Matt's journal is public. There are 2657042 other active LiveJournals (statistic grabbed from here). I'm sure Matt's can't be the only public one talking about the death of Terry Schiavo. You picked his, for reasons I can't understand. But you're right, he's got no problem with you being here, and since I'm tired of trying to figure out why you're here, let's move on.

I do have my own community journals to moderate - and I do moderate them. As I've said on the information page of one: "While we welcome diversity and differences of opinion, flaming and harrassment will not be tolerated." You're right, this is not my journal. But that doesn't mean I have to tolerate flaming and harrassment, and since Matt doesn't seem to mind me being here, either...guess you'll have to deal with me "moderating" your comments.

You're right, Matt has Christian friends. So do I. I have Christian family, too. And this is probably going to surprise you: I even attend church with my family from time to time (despite being an agnostic) and have a good relationship with several of the members of my parents' church. So no, the mention of God doesn't "inflame" me.

It's not your mention of God that bothers me. It would have bothered me equally as much if you'd just said, "Have mercy on our country" and not mentioned God at all. What bothers me is that your way of introducing yourself to Matt was to show disdain (and self-righteousness). It was that your way of introducing yourself to the discussion at hand was nothing but an expression of that disdain, no reason or evidence to back up your opinion.

sibbidy on Apr. 13, 2005 3:05 PM

Is it self righteous of me to ask that God have mercy on this country where I also am a citizen? I ask that he have mercy on everyone living here including myself. Seems to me, my so called "harassment" has led to some stimulating debate.
However, I do agree that I could have expounded on my original comment so that you would have understood my full meaning.
I pray for mercy on a country that is on a slippery slope of moral decline and shudder to think of the precedent that has been set. Who is next?

rikhei on Apr. 13, 2005 3:13 PM

No, you have a point there - I suppose it is not self-righteous to ask God to have mercy on a country where you are also a citizen. (And I felt you were flaming - not harrassing.)

I get the impression that you feel our political system should reflect Christian morality - if that's so, may I ask how you feel about the doctrine of separation of church and state?

sibbidy on Apr. 14, 2005 11:06 AM

This country was founded on Christian morality. The seperation of church and state was created so the government would not interfere with the church, not vice versa. I know you'll argue me on that, but that is my understanding.

rikhei on Apr. 14, 2005 3:41 PM

You were right about me arguing with that. :) At least, I'm going to disagree with the separation of church and state thing being created so the government wouldn't interfere with the church.

As for your other comment, that this country was founded on Christian morality, I don't know that I would phrase it that way given my own views. But Christianity was, to my knowledge, the predominant religion of the founding fathers, and I'm sure their religion played a part (and we have written evidence to suggest that). I suspect we would disagree on the extent.

Back to the separation of church/state issue. You're half-right, from what I gather; Roger Williams (one of the earliest proponents) was afraid of government interference from the church. But Thomas Jefferson (another of the earliest proponents) was more concerned about church interference in the running of the state.1 Ultimately, Jefferson (and James Madison) appears to have been more instrumental in creating law about it, in particular, the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, which passed in 1786. It stated that "our civil rights have no dependence on our religions opinions, any more than our opinions in physics and geometry."2

I was not able to find very much on Roger Williams' part in it, but I suspect that's because the articles I found are focusing on certain aspects of the doctrine. I'll write more on this when I get to work; there are a few books on the topic, which, between them, ought to give a more balanced view than what I was able to pick up from those articles.

1 Hoskins, R.J. (1984) The Original Separation of Church and State in America. Journal of Law and Religion in America, 2(2), 221-239. (You might enjoy this article, it mainly focuses on the "original" separation of church and state in Puritan Massachusetts.)
2 Audi, R. (1989) The Separation of Church and State and the Obligations of Citizenship. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 18(3), 259-296.

matt-arnold on (None)

twoofdtm on Apr. 12, 2005 4:47 PM

*grabs her bootin boot* I think somebody needs some swift kickins!

sibbidy on Apr. 12, 2005 4:58 PM

Hey Matt, not upset at all. :)
I was right- you do have some Christianity in your background.
Somehow I'm not suprised. On second thought I think I'll stick around for a while. Something to make the day pass faster.

marahsk on Apr. 12, 2005 5:07 PM

I don't think she's a troll, but "God have mercy on this country" isn't an articulate rebuttal to "the aspect of life that is important is thinking and feeling, not merely breathing."

sarahmichigan on Apr. 12, 2005 6:10 PM

I couldn't be an atheist for Jesus because I think he was a total fucker. People who don't read the Bible think his teachings were all love and light, but they weren't. He wasn't quite as insane and violent as his Dad, Yaweh, but not a nice man by any stretch of the imgination (assuming that Jesus is loosely based on a real person, which I doubt).

matt-arnold on Apr. 12, 2005 8:03 PM

I think you are quite right.

sarahmichigan on Apr. 12, 2005 8:37 PM

interesting link. thanks.

rikhei on Apr. 12, 2005 8:31 PM

This is unrelated to the topic at hand, but hello! I didn't know you knew Matt.

sarahmichigan on Apr. 12, 2005 8:38 PM

I don't know Matt, except in LJ land!

Hi Rikhei. :)

matt-arnold on Apr. 12, 2005 8:23 PM

contacted me today by instant messenger and we had a fruitful and rewarding discussion.

dianak on Apr. 13, 2005 2:22 PM

My response is 2-parts, because it's almost 2x as long as a reply is allowed to be. Otherwise I'd attempt to edit. Please read both before replying to either.

Arguing with someone who is very headstrong with their belief with soemthing is much like poking at a bruise; you know that when you do, you're going to say "ow" and it's going to be tender, yet you do it anyway, hoping that the next time you do it, there will be a different outcome.

Comparing Michael to Hitler is still insulting and an improper comparison. Hitler made his decision based off of many things, but no one that he killed was on life support. No one that he killed was someone close to him, someone he loved and cared for deeply. No one he killed was looked at as a person. Please keep that in mind, and find a better comparison. Kevorkian, a serial killer that only killed victims he knew, these would be appropriate, but Hitler is FAR from appropriate, and you should acknowledge that his insecurities drove him to begin killing, letting someone off of life support is not beginning a destruction of an entire culture.

"what if, what if what if". There are tons of what if's. TONS of them. Every situation is different. He needed to do what he thoupght was right for him, not for the society in general. That was different from what the parents wanted, yes. But what if it was the other way around? Having parents involve themselves into a situation where they aren't supposed to be allows the situation to be reversed... what if michael had wanted her to stay plugged in and the parents wanted her to be unplugged? What it boils down to is whether or not the person who needs to make the decision, the person who has to make the decision, is informed. If he takes the time to investigate the alternatives, to exhaust all options, and then, realize when nothing else can be done, take care of what needs to be taken care of. So you say they didn't exhaust all options, that there was some way that they could have begun showing progress in her rehabilitation, please let me know what they could have done that has been shown to improve a brain dead - not just brain dead, but partially brain liquified brain dead - and then let me know what your qualifications are to make that decision, and what your relationship is to the poor woman for you to let him know your opinion and why your opinion is so important to her life.

Who are you to say what I would like my husband to do? I did NOT say I wanted to be in the same situation exactly down to my husband to move on with his life and get a 2nd wife. If you put words in my mouth, that completely disregards the argument, and makes me wish I'd never bothered to stand up and say good for you for having your beliefs, but please don't compare Michael Schaivo to Hitler.

~~to be continued~~~

sibbidy on Apr. 13, 2005 2:49 PM

"If I were married, though, I would hope that my parents would defer to my husband. If he asked their opinion, and it was different from his opinion, I would hope that they would understand that in the end, it's HIS decision"

This is what I was referring to when I mentioned your husband making that decision.

dianak on Apr. 13, 2005 2:28 PM

~part two~

It doesnt' matter what the original thought was when the medics were called; they did NOT find signs of violence. She suffered bulimia, which caused a Potassium deficiency. It's a horrible horrible illness, and by downplaying it's importance in her life, it completely makes it allowable for other women to think it's a safe alternative to exercise. I quote wikipedia with this: The cause of the collapse was determined to be cardiac arrest, and while waiting for the paramedics to arrive she experienced a loss of oxygen to the brain. Firefighters and paramedics found Schiavo face down and unconscious, in the hallway outside her bathroom. There were no signs of violence or a struggle. and The St. Petersburg Police report revealed that no illegal drugs or alcohol were found in Terri's system; a physical inspection was unable to find any sign of trauma to her head or face.

In response to "differing opinions", I would hope that if there were "differing opinions", that a decision would be made to the best of the abilities of everyone involved. I'd like to see some of these differing opinions, as well as their expert credentials. I haven't read any that stated she'd be able to make any kind of recovery whatsoever. Further, wikipedia goes on to say that "Terri emerged from her coma two and a half months later at Humana Northside Hospital, but never fully recovered or exhibited any evidence of higher cortical function. How long does she NOT have to show evidence of higher cortical function before it's determined she will never show this evidence? I can't do a handstand, after 20 years I believe I will NEVER do a handstand, should I assume then that I can give up trying to do them? She collapsed in February 1990, and the first time he tried to allow a natural death was in 1994. Early 1994. That's almost 4 years. How long? But that notwithstanding, the parents said that her behavior was responsive, vs. the neurologists who said it was reflexive and instinctual. Who is the expert? How can anyone make an expert opinion based off of less than 5 minutes of edited video from 4.5 hours? Given 5 minutes from a 4.5 hour long video, I can make myself look like a supermodel, but that doesn't discount my chunky thighs and double chin.

In response to his moving on with his life, yeah, that was a poor choice on his part. He made his choice, and it was HIS to make, no one else's, in that instance.

Obviously you disagree with it. He didn't. He was probably under the impression that when the doctors inserted the feeding tube and life support that her pathway to death was put on hold, but wasn't inevitable. Not in the way that everyone's pathway is inevitable, but in the way that, had the EMT's shown up 10 minutes later, her trip would have been completed. Or maybe they discussed these things before, in counseling before marriage, or in random discussions after watching a similar case on tv/movies/news. Who knows. If he was doing it for his own selfish means, I'm sure he would have taken the money and divorced her, so that argument does NOT hold water with me.

Choosing one particular word in an argument and wrapping a response around it is not the proper way to discuss a topic like this and argue it. If you wish to retort to anything I've said here, please back it up with links, or logically sound statements... using completely emotionally based statements have already been accepted and conceded to in my discussion with you, so there's no reason to bring them up anymore, such as saying that not everyone feels the same way I would about making decisions about my life (of which you drew a completely erroneous conclusion by substituting my life for Terri's). I know this, I believe I've made that blatantly clear. I don't think you have acknowledged that others don't agree with you, and some of them are more important in this particular situation than you are.

dianak on Apr. 13, 2005 2:30 PM

PS: Sorry matt, for such a verbose response.... I'm horrible with that. Blame brendan, he links me to your journal all the time when there's an interesting discussion ;)

matt-arnold on Apr. 13, 2005 4:35 PM

Thanks for reading and posting, and thanks to for linking.

dawnwolf on Apr. 13, 2005 7:43 PM — small point of disagreement

"In response to his moving on with his life, yeah, that was a poor choice on his part. He made his choice, and it was HIS to make, no one else's, in that instance."

I don't know how long Shiavo waited to get on with his life, but I can't make myself believe that doing so "was a poor choice on his part." His wife was dead in every sense of the word except that her body had a heartbeat. If that should happen to me, I would hope my husband would get back to his life as soon as he possibly could; *after* pulling the damn plug.

paranthropus on Apr. 15, 2005 2:10 PM

How can anyone be "pro life" and not "pro quality-of-life"?

In other words, how can someone support "life" in the abstract sense, and yet deny that our lives are lived out as individuals; that we have value as individual beings and that tough decisions should always be made on a case-by-case basis? This, I believe, is where the pro-life movement is going to self destruct. Terry Schiavo revealed the first cracks in the facade. Why continue to support life as a principle when the humanity of an individual life has clearly disappeared? If we indeed place human individuals above abstract principles, wouldn't it be better to honor her memory by dignifying her death?

Fundamentalist Christians, as I understand it, detest impersonal bureaucracy. This is one of the main reasons that so many of them have rejected traditional churches in favor of small congregations and a "personal relationship" with God. Fundamentalist communities support each other emotionally, financially, and in all other respects as individuals. I actually admire this philosophy. The problem with this is that as a greater movement, Fundamentalism has to have impersonal goals: an abhorrence with homosexuality, a "culture of life", a denial of evolution. These abstracts will inevitably run into conflict with individual specifics: a gay uncle, a parent with Alzheimer's, a daughter who wants to become a biologist. In the battle of the individual versus the impersonal principle, I believe that the individual will always win out. This is especially true of Fundamentalist Christianity; a faith founded on individual personal experience with the divine.