The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The Schiavo decision ignores the King Solomon precedent > Comments

The Schiavo decision ignores the King Solomon precedent : Comments

By George Thomas, published 12/4/2005

George C Thomas argues that in the Shiavo case the family's rights take precendence over the husband's.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Pericles, I am with you on this one. The King Solomon bow in the artile was a long one to draw. That is more about a wife being "faithful: than the issue that Terri had at hand. We can all speculate about what constitutes "must die" but the saddest thing is that under the legal laws of that particular country, she had a horrible death, starving/dehydration, as compared to what that so called civilised country do to their convicted criminals. Pretty rank in every sense of the word. Who on earth would dare to trade places with her and/or her husband if placed in those shoes. Regardless of vegetative states, I can understand what her parents were going through, but more denial than acceptance.
Posted by Di, Tuesday, 12 April 2005 8:30:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find it a very tenuous proposition to say that the parents "loved" Terri more because they wanted to keep her alive and suffering (assuming she could feel anything, which they apparently believed) while her husband wanted to release her from this shell of an existence. I know I would want to be let go in the same circumstances. I know my wife loves me enough to let me die rather than prolong a pointless existence.
Posted by rossco, Tuesday, 12 April 2005 9:24:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agree with Xena,

No way I would want to live like that. For me the key point is that Terri was being kept alive artificially. I agree with saving life if possible, but to keep someone alive in an artificial manner for 15 years is just sick. I can understand right-to-life in relation to arbortions, because you are unnaturally terminating something that is alive. In this case you are unnaturally keeping something alive that should be dead.

I fully support the husband with his brave stance, and think the interferance of US politicians for pure political benefit was an absolute disgrace.

Quite what relevance the article's author had in quoting the King Solomon story I am not sure.

R.
Posted by Ramas, Wednesday, 13 April 2005 3:56:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George Thomas is joining two debates to make one – abortion and the Schiavo case.

King Solomon was presented with two mothers - both seeming to appear “equal" and "indistinguishable" as worthy claimants.

The defect with the Schiavo case –

The Schiavo case looks at one husband versus two parents – clearly two “unequal claimants“.
Thus the “Solomon dilemma” does not apply and his "wisdom" misapplied and, in this case, abused for the benefit of emotionalism.

In “Schiavo”, we have a lady who as well as being an adult, voluntarily left her parents home to set up her own with her husband. That decision, supported by the unique relationship enshrined in marriage, determines the authority of the husband over the parent (otherwise we are forever to be subordinate to our parents wishes – ignoring age of majority and our own ascendancy to adulthood) - neither a sensible, sustainable or feasible philosophy.

The defect with the “Abortion” claim –

In the debate George Thomas pitches the embryo against the woman (supposedly again as two potentially equal claimants who faced Solomon).

Clearly, when a woman can function entirely independent of an embryo but an embryo cannot function independent of the woman, the claimants are not “equals”.
A woman’s ability to exercise her independent will takes priority over the wholly and profoundly dependent existence of the embryo.

Every persons sovereignty needs to be respected and defended against the third parties who would choose the interfere and force their demands, regarding the deployment of our own bodies, on us against our own will.

So George, do not try to hijack “the Wisdom of Solomon” and corruptly pressgang it into your cause without applying it correctly and please desist from trying to blatantly massage the clearly "inequal" to present them as "equal" claimants.

Your efforts merely bastardise what was the true "Wisdom of Solomon"
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 14 April 2005 4:43:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bravo Col Rouge!
Posted by Di, Thursday, 14 April 2005 7:20:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
well said col.
Posted by its not easy being, Friday, 15 April 2005 10:31:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy