terri, the pope. my uncle

from the comments section of petertan’s blog:
peter said = “Lets cut all the cliche and get right down to the point. I understood what you meant in the previous comment perfectly. I was telling you not to assume what those people who had supported the decision to remove Terri’s feeding tube will suggest for the Pope. It has not been suggested yet. So please do not draw any parallel. The Pope is not bound by the the law of the United States. What was decided for Terri has nothing to do with the Pope. Please do not sully His Holiness’ name with such petty assumptions.”

Lets cut all the cliche and get right down to the point.
but apparently you don’t get my point.

I understood what you meant in the previous comment perfectly.
no, you don’t. i find that you are taking what i said literally.

I was telling you not to assume what those people who had supported the decision to remove Terri’s feeding tube will suggest for the Pope has not been suggested yet. So please do not draw any parallel.
i was not assuming. as i said, it was you who assumed that i assume. you don’t see the parallel? see, what i meant by you taking me literally. that little remark of mine doesn’t mean at all that i will assume those people ARE going to suggest the same for the pope. notice the many question marks i put after i said that? i was saying it out of anger and frustration that those people who suggest the removal of terri’s feeding tube now have to realise how important a feeding tube is when they hear about the pope having a feeding tube. and it doesn’t help at all of course when i remember my uncle who is lying in a vegetative state with a feeding tube.

to continue reading, please click on ‘jog over for more’.

The Pope is not bound by the the law of the United States.
well i’m not a fool not to know that.

What was decided for Terri has nothing to do with the Pope.
yes of course, absolutely nothing. and it has nothing to do with my uncle too, who, like terri is lying in a vegative state for 5 years and on a feeding tube too. but that won’t stop me from giving my point of view to compare people with feeding tube (terri, the pope, my uncle). i am just bringing up the simple points that:

1. everyone need to be fed to keep alive. a feeding tube on a person no matter what condition s/he is, is a right of that person.
2. it is very wrong to say it is ok to remove a person’s feeding tube… which means this action will starved the person to death.

and i’m one of those who said a firm NO to the removing of the feeding tube of terri because of the above 2 points. therefore you can understand my anger at those who are for it. therefore i asked them:

1. now you see that the pope has to be fed via a tube, do you understand the importance of the feeding tube? the feeding tube is to sustain his life… and rightly so terri’s feeding tube too was there to sustain her life, so why asked for its removal?
2. my uncle had been lying in a vegetative state for 5 years now. like terri, he is not brain dead but brain damaged. like terri, he does not have any life supporting machine on him. like terri, he has a feeding tube on him to keep him alive. he is breathing. he opens his eyes and he grimaces. do you think i have the heart to say ok unplug the feeding tube, let him starve to death?

based on these 2 facts, you should undertand my anger at those ‘pull the tube’ people. i was not assuming that they would ask for the pope’s tube to be removed at all. no no, that didn’t cross my mind. it was just a er… sorry i’m not profilic enough so i can’t express myself here but let’s take an example. (sorry i have to be long-winded)

mr ABC said that since mr XYZ’s son is so evil (criminal), his son ought to be tortured and hang to death. then one day mr ABC’s son himself became evil. and being free people who are free to express thier views, i came in to say “tsk tsk. mr ABC says mr XYZ’s son ought to be tortured and hanged, now would he say the same thing of his son?” and when i said this, i am in no way at all assuming mr ABC would want that to happen to his son.

understand now?

Please do not sully His Holiness’ name with such petty assumptions.
well first of all, as i said you are the one who use the word assumption.

sully his holiness name? goodness, no. no no no NO, NO WAY. i wouldn’t dare to do that. not when i know there’ll be some ‘holier than thou’ people or ‘people who like to cast the first stone’ coming in to accuse me of being self righteous lah, using god’s (here it is the pope) name in vain lah, and so on.

my intention, when i made this sentence that made you form assumptions of me:
now, you tell me, the pope who can’t swallow, has a tube to feed him, so do those ‘pull the tube off terri’ people going to say not to give the pope the tube, not to feed him????
was in no way at all to… to use your word… ‘sully’ the pope’s name, or me assuming that those ‘pull the tube’ people would say the same thing of the pope. i think people who understand me can see that. but of course you are welcome not to believe me. doesn’t matter. it’s your opinion.

note: not sure if peter will see this as he now doesn’t read my blog, but never mind, my intention is not to let him see it but for me to ‘let go’.