Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    South Texas
    Posts
    313
    Post Thanks / Like

    Tom Delay: Hypocrite or Not?

    This question is being put up for debate based on the quote we have to keep looking at from Mr. Clivestaples.

    _________________
    Tom DeLay: My question is, "What kind of a man is [Michael Schiavo]?"

    [Walks away from podium]

    Reporter: But why is this a Congressional issue?

    [Walks back to mike]

    Tom DeLay: [curtly] Because the United States Constitution protects the life of human beings from being taken by other human beings needlessly.


    -=[CliveStaples]=-


    http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...litics/3106524
    A matter of perception
    The disclosure that the DeLay family had decided against connecting Charles DeLay to a dialysis machine after his kidneys failed could create a serious perception problem for the Texas lawmaker, some analysts said.

    3 similar facts:

    1. They were/are both severely Brain damaged.
    2. They were both deemed in a complete vegitative state.
    3. They both needed artificial life sustaining help.

    Tom Delay wants to say that his father did not want to live in that condition but calls Michael Shiavo a liar.

    Mustang5: My question is: What kind of a man is [Tom Delay]?

    ( walks away from podium.)
    Mike

  2. #2
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tom Delay: Hypocrite or Not?

    1. They were/are both severely Brain damaged.
    2. They were both deemed in a complete vegitative state.
    3. They both needed artificial life sustaining help.
    First: 3 is wrong. Terri doesn't need life support, she needs food and water.

    I concur with Malkin's take:

    "

    The DeLay and Schiavo cases are worlds apart, for heaven's sake, and it is patently unfair to compare the two. DeLay's father's had suffered broken ribs and a brain hemorrhage; he needed a tracheotomy and ventilator to assist his breathing; his kidneys failed; multiple infections ravaged his body. Unlike Terri Schiavo, he was in a state of steady deterioration and at death's imminent doorstep within days of his accident.

    Unlike the Schiavo case, there was a family consensus among the DeLays and no dispute over what the father would have wanted. Moreover, DeLay was not the primary decision-maker in the family's choice to withhold heroic treatment. That role fell to his mother and another brother and sister.

    "

    http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001868.htm


    And with Patterico:

    "

    There is no comparison between the withdrawal of life support from DeLay’s father and the forced starvation and dehydration of Terri Schiavo. DeLay’s family was unanimous about his father’s wishes. In stark contrast, Schiavo’s family is deeply divided over hers.

    Schiavo’s mother, father, brother, and sister are all adamant that she would want to live – and they welcomed the involvement of Congress. I doubt that the members of DeLay’s family appreciated The Times’s intrusion into their personal lives.

    "

    http://patterico.com/2005/03/28/2809...l-delay-story/


    And with Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council:

    "Two different situations. With Terri Schiavo, there was no plug pulled, there was no respirator taken away from her. She was simply by court order deprived of food and water."


    And with with JustOneMinute:

    "

    "[T]hey deemed he wouldn't recover...". Really? Well, the incident was in 1988, prior to the 1990 Cruzan ruling. At the time, Texas operated under the Natural Death Act. A quick summary of the relevant procedure seems to be here:

    The Natural Death Act (which became Texas law in 1977) says [the patient] must have a terminal condition before life support can be removed. Two physicians (one of whom may be her primary care physician) must concur in the diagnosis. One physician must certify that her death will come in a short time if she is removed from life support.

    When those conditions are met, the law allows the doctor and the patient’s court appointed guardian to disconnect life support. Before they do it, they have to sign a “natural death directive” on the patient’s behalf. It must be witnessed just like the patient was signing it.

    What if the patient has no court appointed Guardian, as in your situation. Texas law then requires that the doctor and certain family members agree that life support should be withdrawn. The family participants are drawn from a statutory list — and should include at least two people from the following categories:

    * the spouse;
    * the children;
    * the parents; or
    * other living relatives.

    Emphasis added.

    "

    http://justoneminute.typepad.com/mai...b_by_the_.html


    This question is being put up for debate based on the quote we have to keep looking at from Mr. Clivestaples.
    I'll change the quote, sheesh.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    South Texas
    Posts
    313
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tom Delay: Hypocrite or Not?

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines
    There were also these similarities: Both stricken patients were severely brain-damaged. Both were incapable of surviving without medical assistance. Both were said to have expressed a desire to be spared from being kept alive by artificial means. And neither of them had a living will.

    http://newpatriot.org/
    Who is Tom Delay? Tom Delay withheld life support from his dying father.

    CANYON LAKE, Texas — A family tragedy unfolding in a Texas hospital during the fall of 1988 was a private ordeal -- without judges, emergency sessions of Congress or the raging debate outside Terri Schiavo's Florida hospice.

    The patient then was a 65-year-old drilling contractor, badly injured in a freak accident at his home. Among the family standing vigil at Brooke Army Medical Center was a grieving junior congressman -- U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas.

    Far be it from me to sit in judgement on such a personal decision, but that is a remarkable about face.


    posted by Chris Dykstra @ 1:07 AM | 0 comments | Trackback (0

    http://tomwatson.typepad.com/tom_wat...lays_life.html
    Tom Delay needs to keep Terri Schiavo alive in the worst way, because her tragic plight is a political feeding tube for his comatose, scandal-ridden career.
    Mike

  4. #4
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Tom Delay: Hypocrite or Not?

    Delay did not "err on the side of life". He didn't decide that his father MAY pull through. He listened to doctors who told him that his father wasn't going to make it. Instead of waiting to see if they were wrong, he pulled the plug on his father and allowed him to pass away with dignity.

    Here are the differences that I see:

    Right to life supporters criticize Michael Schiavo for wanting to "starve" Terri to death, but seem to have no trouble with the idea that Delay SUFFOCATED his father to death. After all, he was ALIVE and Delay took away the air that was keeping him alive.

    The prognosis for Delay's father was admittedly far more grim than for Terri. However, the right to life camp has routinely tossed out the "quality of life" argument.

    I get the distinct impression that Delay or Bush could have put a gun to Delay's father's head, blown his brains out, and they'd STILL be looking for ways to defend him. Their argument is hypocritical as right-to-lifers make knee-jerk decisions regarding who can die and who cannot.

    Would it have been right for the government to intervene on the behalf of Delay's father?

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Schiavo: Life or Death?
    By Apokalupsis in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 257
    Last Post: April 13th, 2005, 09:04 AM
  2. It's all downhill from here...
    By Booger in forum Politics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 18th, 2004, 12:46 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •