Issues Surrounding Terri Schindler-Schiavo Are Disability Rights Issues, Say National Disability Organizations
Oct. 27, 2003 -- We, the undersigned, come together in support of Terri Schindler-Schiavo, and her human and civil rights. We are the national spokespersons for the rights of millions of Americans with disabilities whose voices are often not heard over the din of political and religious rhetoric. We come together for those who will be touched by disability in their lifetime and who will need our help to make their voices heard.
We call on the media to join with us in ensuring that the real story about Terri Schindler-Schiavo, and thousands like her, is told.
We ask the general public, who are clearly confused about what is best for Ms. Schindler-Schiavo and others like her, to read this joint statement, signed by national organizations and our allies, and then to act accordingly to signal their support for Terri Schindler-Schiavo. Terri Schindler-Schiavo is alive. She deserves nothing less than the full advantage of human and civil rights the rest of us are fortunate to enjoy as Americans. We will not rest until her most basic humanity is secure.
The "right to life" movement has embraced her as a cause to prove "sanctity of life." The "right to die" movement believes she is too disabled to live and therefore better off dead. Yet the life-and-death issues surrounding Terri Schindler-Schiavo are first and foremost disability rights issues -- issues which affect millions of Americans with disabilities, old and young.
If you want to read the rest of this appeal by the National Disability Organizations please visit:
http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/schiavostatement.html
SIGNED:
ADA Watch
ADAPT
AIMMM - Advancing Independence
Center for Self Determination
Center on Human Policy
Citizens United Resisting Euthanasia (CURE)
Disability Rights Center
Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund
Disability Rights Project of the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia.
Hospice Patients Alliance
National Catholic Partnership on Disability
National Coalition for Disability Rights
National Coalition on Self-Determination
National Council on Independent Living
National Disabled Students Union
National Down Syndrome Congress
National Organization on Disability
National Spinal Cord Injury Association
Not Dead Yet
Self Advocates Becoming Empowered (SABE)
TASH
World Association of Persons with disAbilities
World Institute on Disability
http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/schiavostatement.html
Originally posted by ivanhoeIvanhoe, you are the most disingenuous "debater" in these threads. Please recall the context in which I referred to you as a 'Chicken Little'. If you simply claimed that removal of Schiavo's feeding tube was morally wrong, then I would not have made an issue of your hystrionics. But you claimed just after the decision to remove Schiavo's feeding tube that "Now all people who are in a coma are at risk of being killed." Those were your words, Ivanhoe, and you have neither suitably clarified nor defended this claim. It was this claim of yours that struck me as analogous to the Chicken Little's claim that 'the sky is falling!". Keep your facts straight, chump.
Bbarr, do you still want to label above organisations as "Chicken Littles" ? ...... the same way you labeled me ?
... and you no1, are you still labelling these organisations as "Far right Chicken Littles ?
But, for the record, if those on the list above agree with your claim that "Now all people who are in a coma are at risk of being killed", then they too are guilty of baseless hystrionics, and are indeed a clutch of 'Chicken Littles'.
Originally posted by bbarrThe usual formal bla bla you cling to in order to save yourself ......
Ivanhoe, you are the most disingenuous "debater" in these threads. Please recall the context in which I referred to you as a 'Chicken Little'. If you simply claimed that removal of Schiavo's feeding tube was morally wrong, then I would ...[text shortened]... eless hystrionics, and are indeed a clutch of 'Chicken Littles'.
..... accompanied by the usual accusations and insults ...
You knew perfectly well what I meant with my statement when you called me a Chicken Little.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI have been kind of impartial to this debate in whichever thread it has been continuing, but your last statement is inappropriate enough to spur me into the fray iavnhoe. Your initial statement which bbar has quoted above was delivered with exactly the inference he claims it was. It stood out alone and was not justified in any way through further posts. Bbar has not pursued the chicken little tag as some sort of overiding slur on you, he referred to that post alone. Your claim that his last post 'the usual bla bla you cling to in order to save yourself' is rubbish.
The usual formal bla bla you cling to in order to save yourself ......
..... accompanied by the usual accusations and insults ...
You knew perfectly well what I meant with my statement when you called me a Chicken Little.
It is exactly this sort of generalising claim that causes your position to be so heavily attacked. You make a grand statement which simplifies the debate sufficiently enough for people to call you out on it and then rather than answer those claims coherently, you resort to an unnecessary bout of diversion and tangent making until you are trapped in a corner and must resort to posts like the one above.
Regardless of my views on the subject of debate, I would hope that those involved could debate without having to go down such routes, you only undermine your own stance and this is a shame.
Originally posted by Starrman
I have been kind of impartial to this debate in whichever thread it has been continuing, but your last statement is inappropriate enough to spur me into the fray iavnhoe. Your initial statement which bbar has quoted above was delivered with exactly the inference he claims it was. It stood out alone and was not justified in any way through further posts. ...[text shortened]... e without having to go down such routes, you only undermine your own stance and this is a shame.
Bbarr knew perfectly well what I was referring to. We discussed this matter.
Some benevolence in a debate is necessary. Instead of accusing me he could have asked for a clarification. It is perfectly understandable what I meant with my statement if you want to look at it in the context it was given. I was referring to the concerns there are in the community of disabled people. In this thread I want to make that clear. Instead of that BBarr once again manages to steer the debate in a direction that is hardly relevant.