Those who killed Terri Schiavo (1963 – 2005) said that she was not in pain —— never admitting that starvation causes pain even if the brain was not functioning well.
Who can deny that thoughts and emotions processed by the brain originated elsewhere as in pain or fear? The brain is a processor that cannot feel pain. As far as I know, there was no damage elsewhere sending signals to Terri’s brain telling her to feel pain. There was no evidence that she was feeling pain. Even if it can be shown beyond a doubt that she was in pain the answer is painkillers not euthanasia.
Who can swear that Terri’s life force, her emotions, her ability to know life was not functioning? Say that a bird landed on Terri’s windowsill. How can anyone say that Terri did not experience the same pleasure and curiosity that makes an infant giggle? The euthanasia crowd will never admit to that possibility because they only speak for themselves. They assume that because they do not want to live in a so-called vegetative state no one else does either.
If I am absolutely correct about this ——Terri’s very essence was starved in the cruelest way imaginable.
Agree or disagree with removing Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube, but you cannot deny that an individual got away with killing her. The person who actually removed the feeding tube committed murder. I never found the name of the person who did it? And I never understood why he or she was not arrested for premeditated murder?
Florida’s courts allowed it, and the US Supreme Court refused to hear the case. Had the SCOTUS taken the case you can be certain liberals would have screamed about the government interfering in our lives. Naturally, it is not government interference when a state court ordered the feeding tube removed.
Why murder? And why premeditated?
A person had to commit the physical act of removing the feeding tube well-knowing Terri’s death would be the result. That is premeditated murder. Think of it this way. Suppose the individual who removed Terri’s feeding tube had the court’s permission to shoot her rather than let her starve to death. Would that be premeditated murder?
Parenthetically, TV viewers are bombarded with government propaganda depicting hard-hitting cops and district attorneys ever-ready to lockup the bad guys, yet someone commits a deliberate act that ends in the death of another human being and there was not cop or a district attorney in sight. In fact, the policeman on duty in Terri’s room was told to leave the room so he could not identify the murderer.
In addition, judges in Terri’s case are guilty of aiding and abetting a premeditated homicide. At the very least, someone in authority should have told those judges: “If you want that feeding tube removed come and do it yourself.” I know that if I worked at Terri’s hospice and someone ordered me to remove her feeding tube, I would have told them where to shove the job.
NOTE: Please do not compare the court-ordered murder of an innocent woman to the execution of a criminal after decades of tax dollar funded appeals. In any event, Terri Schiavo did not hurt anyone, but she was killed without her consent anyway.
One of the arguments I heard for killing Terri cited her Right to abstain from receiving artificial life support. The word abstain was actually used. Of all of the sick perversions in that tragedy the abstain claim is the worst; more so since no one knew what Terri wanted. The government does not allow Americans to abstain from anything these days. Obviously, an exception was made to accommodate the Grim Reaper in Terri’s Right to abstain from being murdered.
Not punishing Terri Schiavo’s murderer is only one such example.
To no one’s surprise the ACLU came down on the side of killing Terri Schiavo. The ACLU is a charter member in the Culture of Death Club, while at the same time the ACLU fights the death penalty at every turn.
