Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 9

message: Gmaxwell, the following edit summary was inappropriate:
"These single frame grabs of Terri appearing responsive are moments out of hours of nonresponsiveness, they aren't characteristic and they tell a dishonest story. See talk."
It is not Wikipedia's place to determine whether the photo tells an honest story or not.
The photo belongs in the story, possibly lower down, with an explanation of the conclusions that one side draws from the photos and an explanation of why the other side feels otherwise.
NPOV is not hard, but it must be done by contextualizing various points of view, not by removing the points of view that you decide are "incorrect."
These photos are very significant to the story.  They are being distributed all over the place by people who have an opinion or agenda.  That opinion or agenda should be reported.  Even people who totally disagree need and want to know about the agenda of the other side.
Jdavidb 04:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally I'd agree, but in this case the photos seem to be inappropriate, because they may be mildly misleading. They appear to show a direct eye contact. I don't necessarily agree with the photos before the cardiac arrest, either, as they don't show the Terri Schiavo that made the wiki entry necessary. There are photos out there that show Terri Schiavo lying in bed, nobody around her, eyes open, that are very neutral. Either "side" of this could see whatever they wanted in them. It's those photos I'd like to see in the opening section.Professor Ninja 05:22, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate removal of photo 

message: If there are stated suspicions about the alleged GOP Memo that ABC News obtained, there should be a cite. ABC News is cited as the source of the memo.  If there is a challenge to the memo's authenticity that should be cited too.  I do not care if Powerline is mentioned directly.  I would do it, but if you think it is too much information fair enough.  But the Powerline link should be left there so a viewer can go look at it.24.18.59.229 18:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pundits and the ABC News alleged GOP Memo

message: In the section section of the article, someone has written that various groups, among them the Catholic Church, have "sided" with Ms Schiavo's parents. We ought to reflect however, on the connotations of time and choice. In other words, if a school of thought or organization ALREADY held a position which an event, subsequent to the development of that ideology, were to occur which correlated one way or another with that ideology, is it correct to imply that choice took place, and that a decision of "siding" occured? Catholic teaching already stood in opposition to the act, which it believes as disrespectful to life, and morally wrong, of removing an incapacitated person's means of nutrition, it is somewhat inaccurate to say that the Church "sided" with a certain position. The Church's position was pre-existing; no choice was made. While obviously a living organization like the Catholic Church can, does, and must make choices, it is incorrect to imply that a theological/moral point of view "took sides." The side it "took" was inevitable and could not have changed, as this was intrinsically inherent in the teaching; the teaching could change, but as long as it stood as it was, there could be no "choice". However, the real issue, I suppose, is the difference between the Church and its teachings...the latter is a system of theological positions, the former is an entity which can make choices. 70.57.139.181 09:31, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the side it took is predictable, not inevitable. The Catholic Church has changed substantially over the years, including recent ones. To give a dramatic example, the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas contain references to foetuses not having souls until some time after conception -- contrary to the conception = human life position the church now takes. While I'd lay odds on them doing this again in the future, it's definitely not set in stone, and the liberalization of the church in recent years is shaking up a bit of accepted theological points. You never know, they may have very well said that Terri's body isn't going to improve, and we are keeping her alive unnaturally, and we should let her soul be with God. And that's not far fetched at all. Professor Ninja 10:10, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Se this archived link for some info on the church and for one catholic with the views Professor Ninja suggests.. Preisler 11:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role of the Church 

message: Ought the first paragraph really bear the sentence refering to the alleged painlessness of her death? 70.57.139.181 09:36, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Painful/less-ness