Calling out Terri Schiavo

Originally posted by scottishinnz
It was hardly 'active' euthanasia - she'd be (and, indeed, is) dead without the machines! It's more "active anti-euthanasia".

Which machines?

IIRC, all she had was a feeding tube.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Slanders? What slanders are we parroting?

[b/]Court cases and autopsies don't mean anything to the Crusaders against the "Culture of Death".

Court cases aren't absolute truth - no. Especially not this one.

As for autopsies, the autopsy doesn't tell us what Terri's brain was like in the 90s, does it?

Nor does the fact that Terri, like standards not to show moral outrage at the opening post (and others) in this thread?

You're really demented. The moral outrage was at Bruno's being burnt alive, something that you apparently don't feel is worthy of any moral outrage at (if it is done by the RCC).

You know perfectly well what insinuations you're making; they were all over the press and these forums last year. I trust court cases and autopsies more than the uninformed views of religious fanatics. But hey that's just me (and Western civilization since the Enlightenment).

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're really demented. The moral outrage was at Bruno's being burnt alive, something that you apparently don't feel is worthy of any moral outrage at (if it is done by the RCC).

You know perfectly well what insinuations you're making; they were all over the press and these forums last year. I trust court cases and autopsies more than the uninf ...[text shortened]... igious fanatics. But hey that's just me (and Western civilization since the Enlightenment).

Who said I don't feel Bruno's execution is not worthy of moral outrage? It's a different matter that, unlike some, I don't let my moral outrage at his death whitewash my evaluation of his philosophy.

Well, apparently you know better than I do what insinuations I'm making. I trust court cases and autopsies too - but I am aware of their limitations and failings as well.

Funny you should bring up the Enlightenment...

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Which machines?

IIRC, all she had was a feeding tube.

fine, without the feeding tube she's dead. She wasn't about to go out to McDonalds.

Originally posted by Halitose
I define passive euthanasia as the removal of extraordinary medical care (e.g. ventilators etc.) and allowing the body to die a natural death; so by my definition (which takes such things as antibiotics and food as ordinary care) she was actively euthanised.

is someone 'alive' if they have no brain activity? Aren't you christians always telling us about this soul thing, and the physical body is just a shell...

Originally posted by scottishinnz
fine, without the feeding tube she's dead. She wasn't about to go out to McDonalds.

Did you intend to imply that all handicapped or otherwise disabled people who have no ability to provide for their own food should be allowed to die of hunger/thirst?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
is someone 'alive' if they have no brain activity? Aren't you christians always telling us about this soul thing, and the physical body is just a shell...

IIRC she was in a coma, not brain dead. Btw, I agree with the definition of death being the irreversible cessation of brain activity.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Who said I don't feel Bruno's execution is not worthy of moral outrage? It's a different matter that, unlike some, I don't let my moral outrage at his death whitewash my evaluation of his philosophy.

Well, apparently you know better than I do what insinuations I'm making. I trust court cases and autopsies too - but I am aware of their limitations and failings as well.

Funny you should bring up the Enlightenment...

You're such a liar; you try to ridicule my "moral outrage" at Bruno's death and other atrocities every chance you get. Don't now pretend you share it; it's tooooooooooo much BS. You positively dripped satisfaction that Galileo was humbled by your monster Church; he was "arrogant" after all! You're one sick SOB.

Originally posted by Halitose
IIRC she was in a coma, not brain dead. Btw, I agree with the definition of death being the irreversible cessation of brain activity.

Persistant vegetative state is not a coma. It's a bit more serious!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_vegetative_state

"PVS is also known as cortical death, although it is not the same as coma or brain death.

Patients in a persistent vegetative state are usually considered to be unconscious and unaware. They are unresponsive to external stimuli, except, possibly, pain stimuli. Unlike coma, in which the patient's eyes are closed, patients in a vegetative state often open their eyes. They may experience sleep-wake cycles, or be in a state of chronic wakefulness. They may exhibit some behaviors that can be construed as arising from partial consciousness, such as grinding their teeth, swallowing, smiling, shedding tears, grunting, moaning, or screaming without any apparent external stimulus."

The chance of recovery after 6 months is effective nil.

Allowing Schiavo to die is different from not feeding disabled people, since they have the capacity to suffer - she did not.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're such a liar; you try to ridicule my "moral outrage" at Bruno's death and other atrocities every chance you get. Don't now pretend you share it; it's tooooooooooo much BS. You positively dripped satisfaction that Galileo was humbled by your monster Church; he was "arrogant" after all! You're one sick SOB.

I don't ridicule your "moral outrage", just the selectivity you apply in realising it and the level to which you let it cloud your judgment.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Persistant vegetative state is not a coma. It's a bit more serious!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_vegetative_state

"PVS is also known as cortical death, although it is not the same as coma or brain death.

Patients in a persistent vegetative state are usually considered to be unconscious and unaware. They are unresponsive to externa ...[text shortened]... rent from not feeding disabled people, since they have the capacity to suffer - she did not.

Allowing Schiavo to die is different from not feeding disabled people, since they have the capacity to suffer - she did not.

Do you have some way of objectively measuring this?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I don't ridicule your "moral outrage", just the selectivity you apply in realising it and the level to which you let it cloud your judgment.

That statement is simply ironic from a "see no evil" propagandist for an institution responsible for a myriad of atrocities.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]Allowing Schiavo to die is different from not feeding disabled people, since they have the capacity to suffer - she did not.

Do you have some way of objectively measuring this?[/b]

The big empty spot where her brain was supposed to be?

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]Allowing Schiavo to die is different from not feeding disabled people, since they have the capacity to suffer - she did not.

Do you have some way of objectively measuring this?[/b]

brain scans. no response in the cognitive centres associated with consciousness, no suffering. Whizz-bang stuff, that!

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Indeed, the frog would just have to generate the 25,000 mile per hour escape velocity (within the arc of its hip and knee joints) and become heat-resistant.

lol

That was an extremely amusing phrase to me, right there. 😵