Jeb Bush, do you have balls, or not?

It’s not a relgious issue, at least to me–it’s a moral and ethical issue.

Some actions of government, and the law, can be so obscene, so outrageous, that it becomes the moral and ethical obligation of those in power to resist. Even if that means, as Judge Roy Moore did, paying the price for doing so. The point I meant to make is that I don’t believe Jeb Bush has the same kind of guts to stand up for what is right.

Nice work on completely failing to address any facet of the actual situation here. Why do you feel that Bush has the right to override the stated wishes of the woman in this situation? The law is clear on living wills, and her wish not to be kept alive in a state like this was also clear. Who has the right to supercede her judgement on how her life should or should not be prolonged by extreme medical procedures? And, finally, is someone really still a person if every single biological component of their personality, identity, and consciousness has been utterly destroyed? Are they even really alive, rudimentary biological processes notwithstanding?

Personally, I would hope that Jeb Bush would have the stones to order Terri Schiavo protected by Florida state troopers, or the National Guard if necessary, to prevent her murder. For that is what it iwould be, in a case where there IS doubt about her intentions.

Murder? At what point is a US hospital obligated to keep something technically alive? For the duration that the relatives/insurance company can foot the bill or until it becomes evident that that there is no hope that the “patient” will ever progress past their current state. From what little I know about this specific case I dont recall seeing anything to suggest there is the slightest chance of recovery.

A horse or dog has more awareness than this woman and it would have been put down long ago to spare it’s suffering. I really don’t understand this fascination with keeping humans that are basically dead or dying in extreme pain when we would put any other animal “out of its misery”.

Do you support the death penalty?

There was a culture of life on my shower curtain this weekend, but I bleached it.

the Ten Commandments–the base for ALL our law

As far as I can tell, only two commandments – thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not steal – are against the law in the US (and, incidentally, every other nation and civilization, Christian or not). There’s nothing against the law for many of the commandments (I can’t covet anything that belongs to my neighbour?), and the US constitution explicitly gives citizens the right to both have other gods, make engraven idols, and take the lord’s name in vain.

There are thousands of people who have signed Living Wills or are under Do Not Resuscitate orders. People die every day without extraordinary measures to extend life. And as a rule, these decisions are made by the family when a person can no longer communicate - written advance directives are available only a minority of cases.

The only question in this case is who should act as a medical decision-maker, and the courts (as they usually do) gave that right to the spouse.

If you and Jeb Bush intend to fight a war against DNR orders and/or living wills, you’re going to be busy with a losing battle for a long, long time.

Out of curiousity, ExecutionerFive, have you ever visited a critical care unit in the hospital? I think that kind of experience can lend quite a bit of perspective as to what the patient and family are really going through. IIRC, health care workers are actually more likely to want Living Wills than the general population, and I heard of one physician who even had a DNR tattoo on his chest, right where the electrodes would go.

Sometimes it takes a lot more stones to accept death than to continue a meaningless existence.

E5’s post HAS to be a troll. Right? Right?

Sorry to disappoint you, Ergo, but it’s not a troll.

In that case, you’re an idiot.

It’s not a troll - it’s just a poorly thought out appeal to emotion without any thought or consideration whatsoever, totally devoid of even the most superficial logical consideration of the situation. If it wasn’t, E5 would have been able to do something more than repeat almost verbatim the opening statement when presented with numerous questions on the situation.

In that case, I don’t know where to start…

  • the Ten Commandments thing, and how they aren’t really the foundation for our laws, and how that was clearly a church-state violation?

  • the whole “her parents want to keep her alive even though she will clearly never recover and she wanted to be put down in this situation” angle?

  • or perhaps, the “I can’t believe you’re calling for elected officials to break the law while in office based on nothing but a personal belief” angle?

Someone help me out here.

I see you thought this was good enough to cut and paste on the OO board as well. What other boards made the cut for this insightful post?

To be fair, spreading the message far and wide can be viewed as a matter of national security. As a future Bush president, Jeb has the familial duty to display bigger balls than the President Bush preceding his future term, as he was to the one before him. (A few generations of dynasty down the road, and the magnitude of required stones will affect underlying plate tectonics.)

So it’s pretty important that Jeb get the message loud and clear. As a political figure, he not only carries his own stones, but the yarbles of millions of others. Should he fail this test, he’ll be committing a grave injustice against the very potency of Real America’s generative seed, which might even be a case of treason. See the case law surrounding Onan.

By whom? There’s only a couple of religious types here (myself included) and I don’t think any of them (us) are “Bible thumpers” or Bush fans. Well, except maybe E5 but I dunno about him.

George Carlin had some great lines on reducing the sanctity of life to include all life. What about a bumper sticker that says “save the tumors” or “I brake for advanced melanoma”. Hehhe.

Actually, taking the Lord’s name in vain is swearing an oath (such as in a courtroom) using the Lord’s name when you are lying, aka perjury. I don’t think the Constitution allows that. :wink:

Did she have a living will though? IIRC, one of the biggest issues in this case was that it wasn’t explicit what she wanted done in this situation. It didn’t/doesn’t help that her husband has acted perhaps a bit shady during the whole thing from what I recall reading.

I live in the area where this has been happening, so I’ve been exposed to endless coverage on it in local news and on radio stations. From what I’ve heard for the past year or more now, the ‘acting shady’ accusations have been flung by her family members, who never liked him, based on the fact that he hasn’t sat by her bedside, alone and celibate, year after year after year. They try to concoct stories like “all the money from the settlement over her accident is gone,” ignoring the fact that it was spent on her freaking care, and flat out accuse him of wanting to kill her to collect the insurance money. Every time I’ve seen and heard the family members, they’ve seemed like vicious people, lashing out to protect their emotional investment in a daughter who is dead, but still lying in front of them breathing. I’m sure that has to be unimaginably hard, but these people have acted like utter scumfucks throughout this whole thing, engaging in a relentless campaign of slurs and mud-slinging from jump.

And, ultimately, how ‘shady’ he may or may not be is totally fucking meaningless. She wanted to die. Court after court after court have found, without problem, quickly, that her intent was crystal clear, and that the law is equally clear on the matter.

By whom? There’s only a couple of religious types here (myself included) and I don’t think any of them (us) are “Bible thumpers” or Bush fans. Well, except maybe E5 but I dunno about him.[/quote]
I was just goading E5 on :) Though I despise Bible thumpers with an intensity bordering on the unreasonable, I’m probably closer to religious than atheist or even agnostic. Deist, I suppose you could call it.