Originally posted by StarValleyWySo you don't read your own writings (rantings)?
No. But I never read anything written by fools.
I get about two words in an quit.
So you see a logical explanation for her 35 broken bones that mike refused to be examined for the first five years of her "vegatative state"?
The New England Journal of Medicine has two articles devoted to the Schiavo case.
Here is a discussion of the medical issues:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/NEJMp058062.pdf
Here is a discussion of the legal issues:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/NEJMlim050643.pdf
I invite Ivanhoe, Kelly Jay and others to read both these articles.
Schiavo is PVS, her cerebrum is destroyed, her EEG's are flat, indicating no activity of the cerebral cortex. She cannot think, she cannot feel, she is completely without consciousness, non-sentient, without awareness, not the subject of phenomenal states, there is 'nothing it is like' to be Terri Schiavo, just as there is 'nothing it is like' to be a table or a chair. She has no interests, no hopes or fears or desires or goals. Nothing can go better or worse for Schiavo from Schiavo's point of view, because she has no point of view.
3 edits
Originally posted by bbarrAs I have said before there are other professional opinions out there stating the opposite.
The New England Journal of Medicine has two articles devoted to the Schiavo case.
Here is a discussion of the medical issues:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/NEJMp058062.pdf
Here is a discussion of the legal issues:
http://c ...[text shortened]... from Schiavo's point of view, because she has no point of view.
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWy"I will accept a 1 in a hundred innocent deaths over the 99 repeat offences. If I were wrongly accused and killed, I would accept that gladly. As long as the other 99 guilty killers died with me."
What can we learn form this mess?
The commodity in question is the currency of deterministic life. If we can just get rid of a "veggie" then what is wrong with killing real kids? They aren't "conscious". They are only a thousan ...[text shortened]... caught in the mess of politics and the liberal need to kill kids.
Do you remember who wrote this, SVW?
That is an amazing display of respect of life, don't you think?
Originally posted by nickybuttWe were talking of an act of "commission", not the Schiavo case of an act of ommission, ie, the courts refusing to grant Terri the same rights as a convicted killer.
"I will accept a 1 in a hundred innocent deaths over the 99 repeat offences. If I were wrongly accused and killed, I would accept that gladly. As long as the other 99 guilty killers died with me."
Do you remember who wrote this, SVW?
That is an amazing display of respect of life, don't you think?
You can't really bring that quote to a totally different argument. Can you?
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYou were talking about respecting the life of innocent kids, and then I thought it was an opportune moment to show your respect for other equally innocent peoples life. I think it makes perfect sense.
You can't really bring that quote to a totally different argument. Can you?
2 edits
Originally posted by nickybuttI would say again that I will willingly die if you get a person off the streets who "acts" to kill a child.
You were talking about respecting the life of innocent kids, and then I thought it was an opportune moment to show your respect for other equally innocent peoples life. I think it makes perfect sense.
But the argument for Terri is one of political power and intrigue. She was probably killed by her husband. So? I defended her as best I could. But I would not offer my life for hers at the point where she became "brain dead". Before that? Hell yes. I would have done my best to fight for her had I happened on the scene where she "fell over in the living room with ten broken bones and a dead brain" from her "Heart Attack".
Originally posted by StarValleyWyHmm, loks like I've been sidetracked.
I would say again that I will willingly die if you get a person off the streets who "acts" to kill a child.
But the argument for Terri is one of political power and intrigue. She was probably killed by her husband. So? I defended her as best I could. But I would not offer my life for hers at the point where she became "brain dead". Before that? H ...[text shortened]... fell over in the living room with ten broken bones and a dead brain" from her "Heart Attack".
Your argument in the first post of this thread was:
If we can just get rid of a "veggie" then what is wrong with killing real kids?
Is it ok to kill that potential on a whim?
As I understand it, your point is that if we allow Terri to die, we will lose the respect for life, and the innocent children will be next.
However you have no problem whit executing innocent people who have wrongfully been sentenced to death.
And therefor I ask, where is your respect for life?
2 edits
Originally posted by nickybuttIn a ditch along side the railway?
Hmm, loks like I've been sidetracked.
Your argument in the first post of this thread was:
[b]If we can just get rid of a "veggie" then what is wrong with killing real kids?
Is it ok to kill that potential on a whim?
As I ...[text shortened]... ced to death.
And therefor I ask, where is your respect for life?[/b]
I don't have a lot of "respect for life" as you seem to have.
I view us as organic chimps who would as soon kill as talk.
But that's because I am having a bad day.
I'll feel "good and fuzzy" tomorrow. Really.
I don't like it when "obviously innocents" are killed or hurt. Children always. Brain dead patients always.
Death Row inmates never.
They had their day. Even if they are innocent... we did the chimp thing and gave them their rope to hang themselves.
<edit> Are you really so logically challenged as to not see the real argument, ie, That of Equating a known innocent to a convicted fellon?
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWySo if Terri is on death row, it would be okay to kill her, even though she is innocent?
In a ditch along side the railway?
I don't have a lot of "respect for life" as you seem to have.
I view us as organic chimps who would as soon kill as talk.
But that's because I am having a bad day.
I'll feel "good an ...[text shortened]... ment, ie, That of Equating a known innocent to a convicted fellon?
3 edits
Originally posted by nickybuttYes. Had she been convicted of murder (by 12 of her peers) it would be ok.
So if Terri is on death row, it would be okay to kill her, even though she is innocent?
She was not.
Let me guess. You are a liberal? I can tell. <snork> It's that child-like wanting to equate all death to evil that gives you away.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYeah, you got me, I am a heart bleeding liberal. Can't argue with that.
Yes. Had she been convicted of murder (by 12 of her peers) it would be ok.
She was not.
Let me guess. You are a liberal? I can tell. <snork> It's that child-like wanting to equate all death to evil that gives you away.