First Elian, and Now Terri.....

It IS barbaric. For whatever the reasons, whatever the circumstances. No one, not spouse nor parent, should have this right to decide the fate of another. What concerns me the most is that Terri's parents valued her life and what I question is the implication of all of this. Will parents now have the right to starve their seriously brain damaged children? And, if so, who will decide the parameters of 'quality of life'? Seems to be an oxymoron in the USA at this time of 'war'. We can support the involvement of Americans to die in Iraq and justify 'mercy killing' of the living wounded Iraqis, yet snuff out a life such as Terri's because we presume it has no meaning. Who decides?
 
nakedemperor said:
There's a difference between having a dead body and a living mind and having a dead mind and a living body.

Who gets to draw the line? Until the early 70's it was presumed that infants felt no pain either and routine medical procedures such as circumcision were performed without anesthetics.
 
bintmundo said:
Who gets to draw the line? Until the early 70's it was presumed that infants felt no pain either and routine medical procedures such as circumcision were performed without anesthetics.

doctors
 
manu1959 said:
i have a special interest in irony and sarcasam

speaking of irony and sarcasm....

....isn't it sweet how the Left opposes torture, even the torture of starving and dehydrating a dog, but they will allow the torture to death of an innocent disabled woman?

Of course, they claim she does not feeel anything....but wasn't what happened to Terri still imposing the act of torture? (and nobody can prove Terri did NOT feel anything)

Isn't the sentence of torture the same thing as torturing?
 
Think you are making a sweeping assumption about 'the left'. Isn't it the left which opposes war? You republicans pride yourselves on Christian values, yet cheer your troops off to a certain death in Iraq. You support Bush, who distains life. You support the death penalty. Ironic, isn't it?
 
bintmundo said:
Think you are making a sweeping assumption about 'the left'. Isn't it the left which opposes war? You republicans pride yourselves on Christian values, yet cheer your troops off to a certain death in Iraq. You support Bush, who distains life. You support the death penalty. Ironic, isn't it?
So a new troll arrives...how nice. The troops are off to a certain death in Iraq! How interesting. I know quite a few soldiers who have gone and come back all in on piece. I am sure they will be very disappointed to learn that they are dead.
 
bintmundo said:
Think you are making a sweeping assumption about 'the left'. Isn't it the left which opposes war? You republicans pride yourselves on Christian values, yet cheer your troops off to a certain death in Iraq. You support Bush, who distains life. You support the death penalty. Ironic, isn't it?

Oh boy...

First, what "certain death" in Iraq are you talking about? Hundreds of thousands of troops have deployed and returned, yet only about 1500 have died.

Second, Bush disdains life because he supports the death penalty? Does that mean that abortion supporters also disdain life, and all the more so, since there are about 1,400,000 abortions each year, compared to a couple dozen executions?
 
bintmundo said:
Think you are making a sweeping assumption about 'the left'. Isn't it the left which opposes war? You republicans pride yourselves on Christian values, yet cheer your troops off to a certain death in Iraq. You support Bush, who distains life. You support the death penalty. Ironic, isn't it?

sweeping generalizations and perecution of a group you disagree with....guilty of what you accuse others of....shall i get you a mirror....tell me how do you rationalize killing the unborn and killing terri yet not killing a convicted murderer?
 

Forum List

Back
Top