Brian Bernardini 26 March 2005 01:28:11 [ permanent link ]
In article <424478c2$0$9388$a8266bb1@news.titannews.com>, "tom ronson" <madscribe123@yahoo.com> wrote:
let's guess? red state resident are we?
I believe they're called the "vegetative states" now.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Quiet Desperation 26 March 2005 07:48:56 [ permanent link ]
In article <1111775461.861085.263470@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, <livingdjinn@yahoo.com> wrote:
BTW, if starvation is such a peaceful way to die, such a painless way> to die (as all the commentators have stated) then why don't we use it> for executions?
It's painless for *her* because she died years ago. Everything else is delusion and fantasy.
Anyone who saw her speak or laugh was really seeing this:
In article <1111775461.861085.263470@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, livingdjinn@yahoo.com wrote:>
BTW, if starvation is such a peaceful way to die, such a painless way> to die (as all the commentators have stated) then why don't we use it> for executions? Put someone on death row, starve them. And if the> appeals process can not work by the time they die, oh well....
Because those who receive the death penalty usually do have a fully functioning cerebral cortex and can tell that they're starving. Terri Schiavo is so far gone that she cannot even recognize that she is starving to death.
By the way, if we are going to defer to life over death in Schiavo's case because we cannot be sure, why not in most death penalty cases? After all, we cannot be sure of guilt or innocence in those cases.
Benjamin Geiger wrote:> On 2005-03-26 08:55, Stephen wrote:>
So remember, you can argue this case till your blue in the face, but if a>>law gets passed taking Michael , her husband, from being able to make the>>decision she wants, then you can not, your husband/wife can not/ or a will>>can not make the decision for you either.>
Quite the opposite. The point is that she never specified her decision,> either to stop being fed or to have her husband decide. Her husband> claims that she told him that she didn't want to live that way, but he> has no proof.>
If she had her decision written down *anywhere*, I could agree. But> now, the only prudent action is to assume that she would have wanted to> live, and act accordingly.
Incorrect. If you cannot assume she would want to die because she never made the decision, you cannot assume she would want to live for the exact same reason.
-- Rockboy We've brought someone in to shut you up It's a life's work
