The Terri Schiavo Case

[Kennedydive]

I was not offended by you post Mike you just happened to be the last poster. I had been away from the tread for awhile and had read the last three of four pages at one time and I was referring to the appearance that this was becoming a religious thread and was stepping away from the real issue. I think everyone is entitled to their own opinion and should feel that their opinion is worth something and meaningful without being shot down or degraded for holding that opinion. If we all agreed on an issue then there wouldn't be the drug out fight between the parents and the husband that is going on today.
Now it is obvious where you stand on this issue and it is equally obvious that I stand on the opposite side. There are people that agree with you views and there are people that agree with mine. That's what makes us different and human. It doesn't mean I don't respect your views or where then come from it just means that I view things differently.
The only part that annoys me is when anyone from either side of the discussion starts to become ignorant or nasty because someone doesn't agree with their views. In the end it doesn't really affect me so if someone says something that hits a nerve with me than that is their opinion and they are entitled to it.
Jason

 

[MikeFerrara]

Kenedydive...there's no reason or justification for any of us to get nasty.

Johnythan...but our values, whatever the origine, will show through when we vote right? So there won't ever be a total seperation.

But if I discuss this anymore I'd rather do it in PM's or something.

 

[simbrooks]

I was not offended by you post Mike you just happened to be the last poster. I had been away from the tread for awhile and had read the last three of four pages at one time and I was referring to the appearance that this was becoming a religious thread and was stepping away from the real issue. I think everyone is entitled to their own opinion and should feel that their opinion is worth something and meaningful without being shot down or degraded for holding that opinion.

Lets just say that i have let some religious comments in here as that is an issue that has come up during this recent trouble. I have trimmed where things got a little too preachy and way off-topic.

The only part that annoys me is when anyone from either side of the discussion starts to become ignorant or nasty because someone doesn't agree with their views. In the end it doesn't really affect me so if someone says something that hits a nerve with me than that is their opinion and they are entitled to it.

I will also endevour to keep it from getting to this point and where i see personal attacks or folks straying off-topic into religious discussions not related to the case then i will step in and try to sort it out.

Thank you for your words a few posts back regarding this issue, the direction you thought it was going and trying to lead it back, the mods arent turning a blind eye to this thread and the discussion of the issues in it.

 

[triton94949]

...
If I was Terri's father I would have first worked for a devorce for her since there seems to be both legal and scriptural grounds. Again realizing that logic doesn't apply well to law but I think that it's a "loophole" in the law that would even allow him to retain guardianship on the basis of being a husband after entering into another psuedo marriage.

I completely agree with the above view (although the rest of the post attempts to use 2000 year old New Testament grammatical inferences to disqualify the guardianship of the husband in the context of a court of modern American law).

And I am surprised that a compromise of some sort as you have suggested between the husband and the in-laws was unsuccessful. Dealing with in-laws is not always the most pleasant experience in life however. Since it was unsuccessful, the husband must have decided at some point that "this way of existing is not what my wife would have wanted." And the courts agreed with him.

Courts are not perfect. Judges do make mistakes. We are lucky that we have courts and appeals courts in America that are fair and just. There are other countries that do not.

We are also lucky in America that we have separation of church and state, and that no one church or religious group can dictate their interpretations to the rest of society. This gives us religious freedom, or freedom from religion, as the case may be.

I go to church, I pay my tithes, and I pray for my enemies as well as for my friends. But I would not want to force my own religious beliefs on anyone else, because I would not want their beliefs forced on me either. Jesus of Nazareth did not force his beliefs on anyone else. He let everyone choose for themselves.

 

[simbrooks]

A consensus has been reached by the mods and it has been decided that this thread has run its course and while you all have discussed many relevant topics surrounding this case, the recent postings are more akin to a religious roundtable discussion which whilst not against the TOS is going way beyond the topic and becoming more a matter of personal contention. As such it has been closed to further posting. If there are issues that are still unresolved from this thread about questions that came up i invite you to PM those involved and continue the dialogue, but not to create spin-off threads over these discussions and what seems like the imminent end to this event.

I do thank you all for your respectable conduct and ability to keep what is, and looked like on first viewing, a hot debate within the TOS for the most part.