1 At this point, there is really nothing on the DU that really surprises nor shocks me anymore. My biggest question is do they actually believe what they write, or is it strictly a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that it is Republicans that are trying to keep her alive?

2 Easy for the DU to say; those bozos will swallow anything.

3 Wow! You republicans really support life! You are against murder and I'm with you. And God will bless you, I'm sure. There's only a tiny little detail I can't understand: how come you all are FOR death penalty? Is not the sixth commandment clear enough? Which part of "Thou shalt not Kill." you do not understand?

4 Has Terri Schiavo killed anyone? How about an unborn child? No, they have not.

5 so what? who are you to decide that murders should be killed, anyway? Death penalty is a crime against God. In a country where anybody with the money to pay a good lawyer (OJ Simpson, Robert Blake) gets acquitted. And viceversa. Death penalty is doubly a crime.

6 Yet the democratic party supports the murder of unborn babies wholesale. Who are you to decide that that being has no right to life? Reconcile that with your flagerant use of Bible passages.

7 The precise and accurate translation from the Hebrew of the 6th Commandment is "Thou shalt not MURDER." It it was "kill," then there couldn't even be a just war, which would be contray to the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas.

8 Nice try. You cannot have it both ways: the 10 commandments are very clear. Man wasn't supposed to kill, murder other men. That applies both to unborn babies and to murders as well. Who are you, Bill Clinton? Defining that 'to murder' is not 'to kill' doesn't change anything. And yes, there is not such thing as a "JUST WAR". Maybe sometimes it can be unavoidable to kill to defend themselves. But the war should be the "extrema ratio" not just a political "tool". Just the fact that death penalty is popular, in this time and in your country, doesn't make it right. Besides, there are only US, China, Cuba and some 3rd world countries to support it, and that's not a group you should be proud to be in.

9 Paul, your ignorance is amazing. "Pro-life" persons who still support the death penalty make a distinction between killing people who are innocent of crime and killing people who have voluntarily committed a capital crime. Its not a difficult thought, you should be able to understand the distinction. And you have omitted quite a few non "third world" countries that still retain the death penalty. There are European countries like Russia, Latvia and Greece, asian countries like South Korea and Japan.

10 Yet, Paul, what we have here is the Democrats all for removing Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, which is, essentially, murder. Do you condone this? Because the DU'ers and the Democrats sure are.

11 Yes, you make a distinction, I see. Just because you like to do so, not because it's right. Greece abolished death penalty in 1993 (last execution 1972) apart for crimes under military law (but in a war people kill people anyway, don't they?) Latvia in 1999. Russia (that is not a democratic country, anyway) has not executed anyone since Gorbaciov (1996). I do not condone the 'murder' of Terri Schiavo. I just hope she's not suffering too much. It's very difficult to take a position in this case, but I'm pro-life. I just wanted to point out the ipocrisy of people 'pro-life' that 'make distinctions' when they find those distinctions useful or popular.

12 Paul--Regardless of whether or not you consider "murder" and "kill" to be synonyms, they are not. Institutions like governments and courts of law have long seen a distinction. As does the dictionary. And the Bible--precisely my point in giving you an accurate transaltion. I don't understand the Bill Clinton line. Did he write a biblical commentary? Killing is always bad? Then why did God tell the Israelites to attack certain enemy kingdoms and KILL their inhabitants, like in Josue, chapters 10 and 11, for instance. And if you don't believe in this, then why do you believe the Ten Commandments are true? No such thing as a just war? Not even World War II? Well, What else would a pacifist say?

13 Well, I'm no theologist, I only express my opinion. So, in my personal opinion, I don't take too literally the Old Testament. Too many people do so, and they can find a reason for anything... there are so many different things in those books. I really don't buy a God that kills enemy kingdoms... come on, what is that? Olympus Gods of the ancient Greece? A Foreign Office Minister? In this aspect, my reference to the 10 commandments could seem inappropriate. But what I know is that 2000 years ago Jesus came between us to teach what is good and what is bad. He never killed anybody. He never told any of his disciples to kill anybody. He taught us how great it would be to be nice to people, for a change. To love each other. To care for the poor and the weak. And I think that many people who fill their mouths with Bible citations often forget the simple Truth of His words. As regards the 'just war', I think that sometimes it can be unavoidable to kill to defend themselves or other people in danger. In this aspect WWII was certainly legitimately fought to defend the World from the Nazi madness. It is logical that when you are attacked, you have to defend yourself, otherwise few bad people could easily rule the world. But that must really be the last resort. When you have a problem with another country you cannot just say "They're against us, let's defend ourlselves!", declare a war and kill them all. I find this behavior unacceptable. And even more unacceptable is declaring that "God is with us" and killing people in His name. My reference to Clinton was a critique to the pretextuous distinction between 'kill' and 'murder'... just like in Clinton's "I smoked but did not inhale"... that's politician's talk. The truth is that there's no need, no reason and no moral ground for death penalty, and you just keep it because it's your 'tradition', it comes from the old times, it get along with your desire to split the world between 'good' and 'evil' with a straight line. And maybe it also flatters the latent racism that still survives. After all, I've never seen a very rich, white man sentenced to death; have you? So, in my opinion, I find really hypocrital to be 'Pro-life' and 'Pro death penalty' at the same time. I hope that Terri Schiavo will survive and it would be wonderful if she could recover. But, if I can be really frank, I think that you're using this tragedy only to make a political point. You don't seem so moved when a poor or unemployed person, without mediacal insurance, gets ill and has no way to afford expensive treatments. Do not they deserve to survive in the same way?

14 Paul--You seem like a decent chap, and I'll bet we agree on a lot of things. You will notice in the Gospels that Christ met several military men, yet never once did He condemn their occupations, nor did He ever condemn war. He abstracted from the temporal concerns of this world and preached the Kingdom of God, bidding men to the spiritual concerns of their souls, and to make sure of securing their eternal welfare. Though temporal temporal, political, and national matters were outside the scope of His mission, He did not condemn them. He treated war as quite a normal event, incidental to the imperfectiions of this worldly existence given over to the administration of men. In Luke XIV, He says, "What king, about to make war upon another king, does not first think whether he be able with 10,000 to meet him that, with 20,000, cometh against him?" Accepting this as human prudence, He warns us to use similar prudence with God. He never condemned fighting. The Church, since its inception in A.D. 33, has always taught that fighting should be a last resort--something too many people forget these days. Just wars are indeed getting harder and harder, with so many non-cambatants getting killed. The world is indeed in a mess. I, too, wish people could just get along. It's the eternal struggle (and challange).

15 I would like to ask everyone here some questions. Is it a humanitarian act to kill a dog that has been run over and has massive internal and external injuries? Is it the kind thing to kill an animal that is in a vegetated state? Does life mean just the length of life or the quality of life? If we are willing to kill a dog to keep it from suffering, should we not do the same for something more important, a human? If we believe in the quality of life, than should we not let Terri go? Is it humane to let someone live, when they cannot even do the basic of all human functions? Is there a reasonable chance that Terri’s condition could ever be reversed? The other point I would like to make is that “we” as a society, we are not killing Terri. I truly believe in the might and power of my God, that if he so desires it, Terri can get out of that bed today. According to the bible, he has done much more. So by removing the feeding tube, are we not placing Terri in God’s Hands? No doctor is injecting her, no one is electrocuting her, and no one is shooting her. She is truly at the mercy of God. And maybe by keeping the tube in, we are denying Terri her place in paradise. If you had your choice, would you rather be in paradise, or stuck in a catatonic state in a hospital bed at the mercy of anyone around you?

16 Very interesting points... The Church has always taught that humans are made in the image of God (i.e., they have the capability of making moral decisions and have an eternal soul), while other creatures do not. So we cannot put them into the same category. Even secular law--up to now--notes this distinction, although the religious aspect is downplayed. Thus, it is considered acceptable to kill an injured animal with no hope of recovery in order to alleviate pain, but not a human.

17 Glad you liked it. The best part is that every damn word I said was true, and it just makes your little tiny brains explode, doesn’t it? Terri Schiavo is already dead. The only thing you idiot right-wingers are doing now is playing political “Weekend at Bernie’s” with her corpse. Necropheliacs.

18 giovannic--It's the left-wingers who think she's dead, which would make the word necrophiliac more appropriate.

19 She IS dead. Now if the Republicans will just stop humping her body for political gain long enough to let her go in peace...

20 She is STILL not dead, gio. Meanwhile, she's peacefully starving to death. Don't go into Human Services.